Digital Camera or Film Camera??

[HiTek21]

Maybe this topic has been posted before but I probably missed it but anyways I just bought me a Canon PowerShot S40 digital camera recently and I have an Canon Elph 2 APS Film camera I bought 6 or 7 months ago. Now do you think the film camera is obsolete now because I have a digital camera or do you think a film camera is better? It cost me a fortune to have 3 rolls of film developed and the pictures I took didn't even come out very good. So should I just sell the APS Camera or keep it?

 

[fr]

I had a Canon Elph2 as well.


I don't have it any more.




It cost about $15 to get a 25 exp. roll developed and the pics looked grainy.

 

[EvanGeliSt]

Originally posted by: HiTek21
Maybe this topic has been posted before but I probably missed it but anyways I just bought me a Canon PowerShot S40 digital camera recently and I have an Canon Elph 2 APS Film camera I bought 6 or 7 months ago. Now do you think the film camera is obsolete now because I have a digital camera or do you think a film camera is better? It cost me a fortune to have 3 rolls of film developed and the pictures I took didn't even come out very good. So should I just sell the APS Camera or keep it?

Got a Canon S30 myself. You might want to take a look at my amateur site. Still in the processing of setting up. *grinz. Above all, i recommend getting a digital camera in the long run. The above camera is already my second and I've taken like 2000 shots by now in 4 years. You can imagine how much film I would have to buy and develop. You might want to take into consideration photo printers as well, so you can print high quality photos as you deem.

Hope that helps.

 

[HiTek21]

Yeah i've been looking at the Canon S-820 or S-900 bubble jet printers, Trying to sell stuff to get some money to get the printer. Thanks for the advice

 

[Whitecloak]

sell it

 

[T2T III]

Since it appears you're getting into the digital world, you might want to check out some software: Photshop Elements 2.0 - this newer version has just been released and a lot of the members in the photo forums seem to like it. Since I have Photoshop, I use it instead. Also, if you are into getting your prints printed, you might want to look into what Costco offers or even Wal-Mart.com. Wal-Mart.com offers you the ability to upload your digital photos and they'll print them for you and send them to your local store (for free). You pick them up about a week later and only pay 26 cents per print. Having the ability to print photos directly at home isn't such a bad idea. However, I don't buy my printers to be able to print photos because I print mostly other material. But, you'll certainly need to look into the costs of the consumbables (ink, photo paper, etc.) and see if it's really worth it - or, if it's just better to use the photo printing services.

 

[Mday]

i use digital for my needs... i may go film when i want something different.

APS sucks, worse quality than 35mm cuz of the extra space needed for the magnetic strip.

 

[vi edit]

I purchased a Canon G2 back in June, and I just had my first digital pictures printed at our local Walmart on the new Fuji printer system. The pictures, were to say the least, fantastic. I had some 8x10's made and the quality of the prints was amazing. Walmart will do 4x6 prints for $.29 a piece, 5x7's for $1.50, and 8x10's for $4.00.

The great thing about a digital camera is that you have the chance to review all the pictures immediately after you snap the picture. If the lighting was off, you can review your image, and snap again. Somebody walked in the middle of the shot, no problem, just do it again. You can take 200 pictures in a days time, go back home and review them, and decide that you only want to print 20 of them. You only have to pay development costs for 20 of them, not the full 200.

I have used my digital camera more times in one week long vacation, than I've used my film based camera in the last 4 years. There is no fear of ruining film, fearing poor shots and not knowing until you paid development fees. No need to develop a whole role for only one or two pictures, ect.

All in all, for vacation pics, and family reunions, and most other applications, a digital camera is simply a better choice for the average picture taker. Right now, $300-$400 can get you fantastic picutre quality. The up front costs are a little bit higher, but the reduced development fees, and piece of mind far make up for it.

 

[ElFenix]

aps is a smaller frame than 35mm (24mm i think) but its still higher resolution than the digicam. plus the digicam costs are front-loaded. you pay 3x as much to start, how long will it take for processing costs to go over that? don't forget the spare battery you'll need if you want to shoot all day long.

might be best to ditch both and go with an olympus stylus epic. awesome lens.

 

[Platypus]

Film is still better than the best digital shot I have seen. If you know what you're doing, you can surpass the quality of digital photos. Film has depth to it in my personal opinion, and digital just does not. You can do amazing things with an SLR that you cannot do with a point and shoot digital. The very expensive digital SLR's however are coming along in leaps and bounds. If you see yourself as more of a point and shoot person, sell the SLR.

 

[The Stigenator]

Originally posted by: CorporateRecreation
Film is still better than the best digital shot I have seen. If you know what you're doing, you can surpass the quality of digital photos. Film has depth to it in my personal opinion, and digital just does not. You can do amazing things with an SLR that you cannot do with a point and shoot digital. The very expensive digital SLR's however are coming along in leaps and bounds. If you see yourself as more of a point and shoot person, sell the SLR.

I agree, Film based on an SLR beats any P&C Digital Camera. I want an SLR so bad.. but I dont have the time these days to do those magical shots that I am capable of.

 

[HiTek21]

Originally posted by: CorporateRecreation
Film is still better than the best digital shot I have seen. If you know what you're doing, you can surpass the quality of digital photos. Film has depth to it in my personal opinion, and digital just does not. You can do amazing things with an SLR that you cannot do with a point and shoot digital. The very expensive digital SLR's however are coming along in leaps and bounds. If you see yourself as more of a point and shoot person, sell the SLR.

Yeah my mom has an SLR Camera and she would not trade it for anything in the world. She loves that camera to death. I'm a noob when it comes to photography, I really don't take any photos that I really want to keep just to play around with. I only bought the Canon APS camera because it was small, cheap and did its job. I never though I'd be buying a digi cam so soon. Some day when I have some spare cash i'm definatly gonna get me a nice SLR Camera and take some photography lessons and learn. As for now I'll stick to digital photography and printers..

Thanks for all the replies

 

[Mr N8]

Nikon 5700 here. I still use my Canon Eos Rebel SLR camera a lot, though. Just depends on what you are using it for. Stuff I want to print cheap, and save, I use film. If I know I'll want digital pics or its just everyday stuff, I use the digicam

 

[Pooteh]

if you have 6k to dump into a digital slr, wow nice stuff indeed. still not quite film quality though. just a little longerand we'll have some really good digicams. but for now, they are merely good enough. blow up pictures from a 2-3mpixel camera = ugly!!!!