Which do you prefer, Film cameras or Digital cameras?
What is the reason for your choice?
Printable View
Which do you prefer, Film cameras or Digital cameras?
What is the reason for your choice?
Digital Camera. Cheap, fast, good!Quote:
Originally Posted by Torc
Digital. No contest.
The digital media is approaching if not exceeding the capabilities of standard film. Used 35mm for years - can no longer discriminate significant difference between a good 10MP image and 35mm. Besides, it's far cheaper in the long run.
-Max :D
Digital: Take photo. Look at it. Bad photo. Delete. Take photo. Repeat.
Film: Take photo. Wait months. Look at it. Bad photo. Throw away. Moment lost.
I used to work in one of Cleveland's largest commercial photo labs and knew the business as well as anybody. I saw the digital age coming in the early-'90s and decided to get out while I still could. After enrolling in college I worked as a news reporter and photographer at a small newspaper where they were still shooting everything in B&W. After some prodding I convinced the editor to purchase a color film processor and color head for the enlarger and as I neared graduation I helped them convert completely over to digital and I have not shot a single frame on film ever since. I miss the days of free film and processing, but I don't miss all the work it took to produce prints.
I still have a few film cameras and some darkroom equipment - including a 1925 Kodak 2-C. Sorry, it's not for sale...
Digital may be better quality at this point depending upon the camera and is much more convenient. With digital you don't have to deal with the hassle of developing film and converting the image to digital. If you run out of film you're out of luck. You can run out of memory with a digital camera but you can get pretty good size storage cards nowadays for not too much plus if you did run out of storage and wanted to take more shots you could look at what pictures you took and delete the ones that weren't that good and that way create more space to take more pictures. You can't do anything like that with a film camera.
One thing about taking digital photos is that if you store you photos on your hard drive you should be sure to back up your photos to a cd or another drive or something. Back in 2005 I lost hundreds of digital photos when my hard drive croaked. All the photos I've been entering into the photo contests come from 100 survivors I had saved to a cd. I'd have a much larger library of photos to choose from if my hard drive never died or I had saved the photos to something else.
Not to mention you can carry a few SD cards around with you. So if you do fill up your 4gig SD, throw in a new one, put the other in your camera bag.Quote:
Originally Posted by EntityX
Serves you right for using amphibians as a file storage medium.Quote:
Originally Posted by EntityX
It should be spelled 'fly' to be quite correct, but what other medium would you prefer?Quote:
Originally Posted by mendhak
I'm pretty sure 10mpx images cannot be blown up as large as a quality low ASA 35mm film exposure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Peck
That being said, the benefits of using digital are major, instant review and easier workflow.
I would consider shooting film, but not 35mm, I'd like to shoot 4x5 using a view camera. It can be done digitally but that's not for us mortals to afford.
Neither were 10mpix cameras, just a few years back. There are currently, large format digitals being marketed. It may be that in a few years, 35mm will be as archaic as CRT monitors.Quote:
Originally Posted by grilkip
I have to admit that at present one of the things preventing me from going digital,
apart from a lack of cash, is that when i look at the specs for Digital SLR's they all seem
to have the same operating environment of 0 to 40 degrees.
So far when I have looked for specs on Film SLR's i have been unable to find any details.
As far as the question of data is concerned I believe that a 35mm film photo contains the
equivalent of 20-21 Mp, which is only convered by High End digital's at present.
digital, no comparison. You can practice to your heart's content, with no additional expense, and there's always the instant reward factor. The no waiting for development is big. At least for me it is.
I don't think the ranges are quite right. For most people, the upper range that you state is fine, but I still think it is a bit conservative. As for 0 (and I assume you are using C), I have certainly used my camera below that temperature. I do think there is a point at which the screen will be damaged, so I keep my camera close to my body for winter trips, such that it doesn't get all that cold, but I think the lower limit has to be below -10, at least.Quote:
Originally Posted by Torc
I doubt that that's an accurate estimate. I think 35mm film would definitely give less resolution than 20-21 Mp cameras of course there are different types of 35mm film and some have finer grain. Check out this post from schoolbusdriver. He was using a 12 megapixel camera and cropped quite a bit to get the image on the right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Torc
Post # 26 in Photographography Thread
Operating ranges are always conservative.
Below zero degrees you will lose some battery charge (and perhaps the LCD) but the camera ought to be fine. 40 degrees C is no problem. We get hotter days than that every summer.
Film has a better dynamic range than digital CMOS/CCD sensors, and is much cheaper. Unfortunately, of course, it isn't reusable.
The lack of re-usablity renders the "cheaper" part null-and-void.Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
-Max :D
Quite!
The cameras I use are around 12 megapixel. Most monitors, and even HD TVs are a third to a quarter of that resolution, so the number of pixels has to be reduced to display on a screen, generally making a pic look sharper after processing. Compare that to a film camera, where the image has to be magnified to display on a large screen.
There's also the matter of being able to display a pic file on a variety of consumer equipment, such as digital photo frames and modern TVs via a DVD player. Think about the equivalent for film.
The irony is that if you print your snaps for a photo album, they'll probably be less than 6" x 4" :)
A really good point about digital snaps is that you can upload your pics and order prints for less than it would cost you to print (or develop) your own, without even taking that pint of warm strong stout from your lips.
Digital cameras have been in the mass market for only about ten years or so. We are likely to be in the IBM PC era of digital cameras. In ten years, you may be looking back on 10 MPix and 35mm format as being hopelessly dated.
Oh, almost forgot - (some) digital cameras can be hooked up to a laptop so that you can see what the camera sees (with live view), and triggered remotely. Try doing that with a 35mm film camera.
A 35mm film slide or negative is the same size as a 35mm digital sensor. Both images need to be magnified to be printed or displayed at any reasonable size.Quote:
Originally Posted by schoolbusdriver
Many folks confuse size with resolution...
what a coincidence. That happens to exactly coincide with my temperature operating range.Quote:
Originally Posted by Torc
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by schoolbusdriver
*bewildered* You guys are talking about pictures right? With the pretty colours and all that jazz?