POLL: Digital vs. Film Cameras?

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: GOSHARKS

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Digital has better convenience. Film has better quality.

actually digital passed up 35mm in quality quite a while ago

The film camera used for that comparison wasn't worth crap. Talk to me when someone does a comparison using a Contax RTS with a Zeiss lens.

ZV

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Digital. You can see the picture you took, determine whether it's good, and reshoot if you have to. And you can take as many pictures as your memory allows without having to worry about the cost.
And I don't need prints.. Why would I print pictures when I can view them on the computer, show them to friends through my site, etc? A

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Depends. For everyday use, digital hands down.

For SLRs, film. Digital cannot come close. I can tell if I'm using a good lens or just an average lens with my SLR, and I can pick out digital pretty well. IMO, using digital to shoot proper photographs takes all the art out of it.

ZV

This is almost like saying "Using a camera for a portrait (as opposed to oil painting) takes all the art of it."

The art isn't dependent on the medium. Good composition is composition. Either you have the eye or you don't. Digital cameras don't make bad photogaphers any better.

 

[Jzero]

Why would I print pictures when I can view them on the computer, show them to friends through my site, etc? A

It depends on your needs. You can't hang a digital photo in a gallery or on the wall. At least, not easily.

 

[TechnoKid]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: GOSHARKS

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Digital has better convenience. Film has better quality.

actually digital passed up 35mm in quality quite a while ago

The film camera used for that comparison wasn't worth crap. Talk to me when someone does a comparison using a Contax RTS with a Zeiss lens.

ZV

Contax......very very nice cameras.

 

[Squisher]

The one thing I don't like about the digitals I've used is the poor visual feedback you get on the LCD for manual settings.

Trying to adjust focus manually on a digital sucks.

 

[Wallydraigle]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: GOSHARKS

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Digital has better convenience. Film has better quality.

actually digital passed up 35mm in quality quite a while ago

The film camera used for that comparison wasn't worth crap. Talk to me when someone does a comparison using a Contax RTS with a Zeiss lens.

ZV

The same lens was used for both shots. I don't see the problem.

How would you set up the comparison?


**Edit: Oh yeah, by today's standards the D30 ain't all that either 😛

 

[eplebnista]

Digital Cameras

 

[GTaudiophile]

I've used 35mm, APS, and digital. It's a beautiful day when you get that camera into your hand and realize you can take as many photos as you want, delete, and keep on going until your memory is full without having to worry about development costs.

Digital is the future! (see my sig for examples)

 

[Schadenfreude]

So it's more a matter of convenience and $$$ . . . I understand. 😛

 

[imported_Mike]

Originally posted by: Jzero

Why would I print pictures when I can view them on the computer, show them to friends through my site, etc? A

It depends on your needs. You can't hang a digital photo in a gallery or on the wall. At least, not easily.

? You print it, stick it in a frame, hang on wall....seems pretty easy to me. 😕

 

[The Stigenator]

both.. each has its plus and minuses.. for my limited budget, i will take a point and shoot digital and a decent SLR film camera.

 

[Kelemvor]

I chose Doesn't Matter.

I like digital ones because you can just take pictures of anything without having to worry about wasting film. You just delete what you don't want. The quality is better on regular file pictures, but you can always edit digital ones too.

But all in all, it doesn't much matter to me. We use out digital camera (2 or 3 meg) for most generic stuff and use out expensive Nikon for when we want really good quality.

 

[Ferocious]

for the 100th time.....

Film camera quality is still noticeably better.

But digital cameras are more convenient. Often way moreso.


I personally have one of each.

 

[GoSharks]

have you guys even looked at the link i posted on the first page? 35mm is not better than digital anymore - and keep in mind that the comparison was done using a 3-generation old "consumer" dslr.

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: Ferocious
for the 100th time.....
Film camera quality is still noticeably better.
But digital cameras are more convenient. Often way moreso.
I personally have one of each.

Meh. I'll take the 5x7 prints I can generate with my G3 over just about any point and shoot film camera. Hell, even the 8x10's are outstanding and I get lots of compliments on image quality.

My wedding pictures were all done with a sony F717 5MP digital camera and the 8x10's generated with that were top notch. In fact, I had people that were quite jeolous of the image quality over what their wedding pics were.

Then to really put icing on the cake, I told them they were digital and I paid $150 for over 150 shots with the ability to print 5x7's at any time for $1.50 a piece and 8x10's for $3.00 a piece.

I don't care if I ever again touch a film based camera.

 

[0roo0roo]

when 6+ megapix cams become cheap, film will be near dead. until then, digi is good for snaps, but for important stuff, a film slr. course if money is no object, digital slr is quite awesome.

 

[Gibson486]

Originally posted by: CheapArse

Originally posted by: Jzero

Why would I print pictures when I can view them on the computer, show them to friends through my site, etc? A

It depends on your needs. You can't hang a digital photo in a gallery or on the wall. At least, not easily.

? You print it, stick it in a frame, hang on wall....seems pretty easy to me. 😕

ummmm....I doubt you can see that quality difference then, especially from a home printer.

Anyways, I have both and they are both good for certain things. The thing that sucks about digi cams is some have slow shutter speeds. Also in low light, a regular film cameras works best.

 

[Anubis]

Anyways, I have both and they are both good for certain things. The thing that sucks about digi cams is some have slow shutter speeds. Also in low light, a regular film cameras works best.

exactly!! you can get a digi cam that will be good in low light and has a fast shutter but it will cost you 3000$+

a top of the line film body will only cost about 1800$ and for 1000$ you can have one that does everything

my issue with digi cams other then low light is that if you want one you can manually focus you have to spend at least 1000$ for body and lens of a digital SLR, yes they are great for point and shoot, but to do anything serious you need to shell out $$$$$$

 

[coder1]

These people that constantly say that film produces a better image need to give a few more specifics in their argument. If you are saying that a 35mm film SLR enlarged to a 5X7 or even an 8X10 will produce a better image than a Canon 10D printed to the same size then I respectivley disagree. If you're blowing them up to 20X30 then there may be some detail differences. Of course I still think medium format will produce higher quality images but the days of 35mm dominating digital are over.

 

[Anubis]

sorry coder but a print made from ISO 50 Slide film like velva or kodachrom look noticibly better at any size, you cannot achieve the colour saturation of slide film with digital without insane ammounts of post processing and even then its not as good

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: coder1
These people that constantly say that film produces a better image need to give a few more specifics in their argument. If you are saying that a 35mm film SLR enlarged to a 5X7 or even an 8X10 will produce a better image than a Canon 10D printed to the same size then I respectivley disagree. If you're blowing them up to 20X30 then there may be some detail differences. Of course I still think medium format will produce higher quality images but the days of 35mm dominating digital are over.

Exactly. Film can be very nice if you know what your doing, but it is also expensive. My 5MP Canon digital can produce 4x6 that look better than many film cameras; however, I would never blow them up past an 8x10. Right now, digital cameras are desirable because of the low cost and ease of storage (think how mich money one can save by not having to develop pictures, or only printing a few select pictures). However, as the top-of-the-line digital SLR cameras are starting to show, digital can also look as good as film, if not better. Within two years, not only will digital cameras be cost effective, but I guarantee they will be indistinguishable from film, even at 20x30.

 

[randomlinh]

I like film, but it's way too expensive to play with... altho, the cost of a digital SLR compared to a film SLR may offset that a bit... but in the long run, I'm not doing it as a profession, so digital it is.... when i get the money. heh. for now, P&S digital.

 

[gwlam12]

would u want to take a group shot with a film camera and then later find out it came out blurry? or would u like to take it with a digicam and be able to see if it came out ok?

 

[Lola]

i love having a digital but there is also something to say about developing photos from a film camera. its a good anticiaption type thing, but i voted for digital!