Professional Web Applications Themes

Film vs. Digital - Photography

Ron, The question that needs to be answered and understood is what s about the Sony pictures? Shooting with a digital camera is a little different from shooting with film. The shutter delay will cause you all kinds of grief if you do not compensate for it. If you do not save your files in a format that will reflect you end use, this too will not bode well for the result. If you are shooting fine with the Canon A1, why change other than to take advantage of the new technology. I shoot with a Nikon F-100, a Olympus ...

  1. #1

    Default Re: Film vs. Digital

    Ron,
    The question that needs to be answered and understood is what s about
    the Sony pictures?
    Shooting with a digital camera is a little different from shooting with
    film. The shutter delay will cause you all kinds of
    grief if you do not compensate for it. If you do not save your files in a
    format that will reflect you end use, this too will
    not bode well for the result.

    If you are shooting fine with the Canon A1, why change other than to take
    advantage of the new technology.
    I shoot with a Nikon F-100, a Olympus E-20 and a Pentax 67. Each has it
    plus and minuses. However I am finding that more and more
    I will use the digital Olympus in situations that I would have used the
    F-100. The results have been excellent up to 16 X 20 and acceptable at 24 X
    28. This is a 5.4 megapixel camera.

    Bob
    WolfGrafx


    "Ron" <rfranksadelphia.net> wrote in message
    news:l6pjivo18b6m9sj5kae3fke5fsedthjnd84ax.com...
    > I have been using a Canon A1 for 22 years now. I still takes awesome
    > pictures. I recently purchased a digital camera (Sony 5 mega pixels).
    > So far, the digital camera s! Question: will digital replace film
    > in the near future? If not, then what is a good film SLR camera to
    > buy? I am think about a new Canon or a Nikon.
    >
    > Thanks.

    Bob Ashby Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: Film vs. Digital

    I'll echo what Bob said. I shoot with a Canon Elan IIe and an Olympus E20.
    I love both cameras, but it's getting to the point that I use the E20 almost
    exclusively. The results are great, and it has the feel of a traditional
    film camera. The only real pain about a digital camera (for me, anyway), is
    the rapid battery drain, but I solved that problem by buying a Quantum
    battery. It paid for itself in a very short time.

    Phil

    "Bob Ashby" <bashbywolfgrafx.com> wrote in message
    news:QW0Wa.15641$Oz4.5923rwcrnsc54...
    > Ron,
    > The question that needs to be answered and understood is what s about
    > the Sony pictures?
    > Shooting with a digital camera is a little different from shooting with
    > film. The shutter delay will cause you all kinds of
    > grief if you do not compensate for it. If you do not save your files in a
    > format that will reflect you end use, this too will
    > not bode well for the result.
    >
    > If you are shooting fine with the Canon A1, why change other than to take
    > advantage of the new technology.
    > I shoot with a Nikon F-100, a Olympus E-20 and a Pentax 67. Each has it
    > plus and minuses. However I am finding that more and more
    > I will use the digital Olympus in situations that I would have used the
    > F-100. The results have been excellent up to 16 X 20 and acceptable at 24
    X
    > 28. This is a 5.4 megapixel camera.
    >
    > Bob
    > WolfGrafx
    >
    >
    > "Ron" <rfranksadelphia.net> wrote in message
    > news:l6pjivo18b6m9sj5kae3fke5fsedthjnd84ax.com...
    > > I have been using a Canon A1 for 22 years now. I still takes awesome
    > > pictures. I recently purchased a digital camera (Sony 5 mega pixels).
    > > So far, the digital camera s! Question: will digital replace film
    > > in the near future? If not, then what is a good film SLR camera to
    > > buy? I am think about a new Canon or a Nikon.
    > >
    > > Thanks.
    >
    >

    Phil Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: Film vs. Digital


    I agree very much with what Phil and Bob said, but with me it's a bit of the
    opposite. I started out with a digital (Nikon Coolpix 900, pretty old now),
    sold that and got a Coolpix 5000. I shot with that for a while, but when I
    got hold of my first SLR (Nikon F/N 65) I was hooked. Since then I've
    gotten an FM2 to really learn the basics the hard way (and it has
    worked!) and have recently upgraded to an F100, which is awesome. I
    almost exclusively shoot film nowadays. Bob is right, though, digital
    photos can be enlarged with excellent results up to the measures he
    mentions. Now, when Nikon brings out a decent full-frame digital SLR,
    I will be seriously tempted, but until then, I'll stick with film, although
    the CP5000 gets used in certain situations (mostly holiday P&S work)

    Cheers,
    Kurt

    "Phil" <philbert1earthlink.net> dropped into the real world with a crash
    and proclaimed...
    > I'll echo what Bob said. I shoot with a Canon Elan IIe and an Olympus
    E20.
    > I love both cameras, but it's getting to the point that I use the E20
    almost
    > exclusively. The results are great, and it has the feel of a traditional
    > film camera. The only real pain about a digital camera (for me, anyway),
    is
    > the rapid battery drain, but I solved that problem by buying a Quantum
    > battery. It paid for itself in a very short time.
    >
    > Phil
    >
    > "Bob Ashby" <bashbywolfgrafx.com> wrote in message
    > news:QW0Wa.15641$Oz4.5923rwcrnsc54...
    > > Ron,
    > > The question that needs to be answered and understood is what s
    about
    > > the Sony pictures?
    > > Shooting with a digital camera is a little different from shooting with
    > > film. The shutter delay will cause you all kinds of
    > > grief if you do not compensate for it. If you do not save your files in
    a
    > > format that will reflect you end use, this too will
    > > not bode well for the result.
    > >
    > > If you are shooting fine with the Canon A1, why change other than to
    take
    > > advantage of the new technology.
    > > I shoot with a Nikon F-100, a Olympus E-20 and a Pentax 67. Each has it
    > > plus and minuses. However I am finding that more and more
    > > I will use the digital Olympus in situations that I would have used the
    > > F-100. The results have been excellent up to 16 X 20 and acceptable at
    24
    > X
    > > 28. This is a 5.4 megapixel camera.
    > >
    > > Bob
    > > WolfGrafx
    > >
    > >
    > > "Ron" <rfranksadelphia.net> wrote in message
    > > news:l6pjivo18b6m9sj5kae3fke5fsedthjnd84ax.com...
    > > > I have been using a Canon A1 for 22 years now. I still takes awesome
    > > > pictures. I recently purchased a digital camera (Sony 5 mega pixels).
    > > > So far, the digital camera s! Question: will digital replace film
    > > > in the near future? If not, then what is a good film SLR camera to
    > > > buy? I am think about a new Canon or a Nikon.
    > > >
    > > > Thanks.
    > >
    > >
    >
    >

    ink Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: Film vs. Digital


    "Ron" <rfranksadelphia.net> wrote in message
    news:l6pjivo18b6m9sj5kae3fke5fsedthjnd84ax.com...
    > I have been using a Canon A1 for 22 years now. I still takes awesome
    > pictures. I recently purchased a digital camera (Sony 5 mega pixels).
    > So far, the digital camera s! Question: will digital replace film
    > in the near future? If not, then what is a good film SLR camera to
    > buy? I am think about a new Canon or a Nikon.
    >
    > Thanks.
    Ron, "if it aint broke don't fix it", stick with your A1, excellent camera,
    and after 22 years of use you must know it inside out, the only thing you
    will get with a new camera is a whole load of gimicky crap that will just
    mess with you head , and you photos, they won't improve on experience and
    will just set you back an unnecessary expense. I speak from experience,
    changing camera's every few years just costs money.
    Digital is still nowhere near as good as film, by quite a long way, and even
    the super expensive "do it all" digital SLR's can t match fim, yet, but if
    you have your heart set on a new camera, and can afford to go to big money,
    don't go for a gimicky mass produced camera, get yourself a Leica, expensive
    yes, gimicky no, the rolls royce of camera's, or move up to medium format
    for extra punch,. with both of these options you can either go new or used
    and you will get some hot camera gear. Digital is still more of a
    snapshot format at the moment, but I eagerly await the day when it matches,
    or even surpassed film, for quality, then I will go digital, but for the
    time being, its a snapshot medium.

    I also eagerly await the cries of "HERETIC" from the digital lobby, the
    meare hint that digital isnt up to it, drives them crazy, and anyone found
    to be favouring film over digital is taken out and "stoned" to death under a
    barrage of obsolete ccd sensors, the ones that were the dogs wotsits last
    month, and arnt worth the price of a packet of peanuts this month.

    Sorry just my little rant for the day, before the above mentioned lobby
    comes down on me like a biblical plague, watch and enjoy. LOL

    Brian....................


    Brian Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: Film vs. Digital

    I can't forsee a situation where I'll ever load another roll of film
    into my Hasselblads. Before going digital I looked at several amateur
    level cameras. I could see that it would have to be an SLR or nothing
    so that boiled down to Canon or Nikon. I've never owned either but the
    10D looked better than the D100.
    Randall Ainsworth Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: Film vs. Digital

    Hopefully you picked it up at a chain that allows you to try something
    out for a few weeks and return it if you don't like it. If not,
    perhaps eBay?

    What s about the camera/pictures? Can you show us examples and
    say why you don't like them?

    Peter


    On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 03:57:30 GMT, Ron <rfranksadelphia.net> wrote:
    >I have been using a Canon A1 for 22 years now. I still takes awesome
    >pictures. I recently purchased a digital camera (Sony 5 mega pixels).
    >So far, the digital camera s! Question: will digital replace film
    >in the near future? If not, then what is a good film SLR camera to
    >buy? I am think about a new Canon or a Nikon.
    >
    >Thanks.
    Digital Photography Reference
    [url]http://members.shaw.ca/jonespm2/PJDigPhot.htm[/url]
    Touchup, an image viewing applet (also shows EXIF)
    [url]http://members.shaw.ca/jonespm2/software.htm[/url]
    Health, happiness and healing
    [url]http://www.SuperNaturalWoman.com[/url]
    Peter Jones Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: Film vs. Digital

    x-no-archive: yes
    > >I have been using a Canon A1 for 22 years now. I still takes awesome
    > >pictures. I recently purchased a digital camera (Sony 5 mega pixels).
    > >So far, the digital camera s! Question: will digital replace film
    > >in the near future? If not, then what is a good film SLR camera to
    > >buy?
    Is there something wrong with your present camera, or are you just looking
    for something newer?

    If you want something substantial, like what you have now, have a look at
    the Contax RTS-III, with those prime Zeiss lenses. Pricey, but not as
    expensive as Leicaflex.

    You don't say what your proposed applications are, nor what features you are
    most interested in. If you are not keen on those lightweight, plasticky
    bodies and lenses, you might be disappointed with what is available these
    days at a reasonable price.


    Jeremy Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: Film vs. Digital

    HERETIC!

    Just kidding. I will agree that most films hold more detail than any
    digital camera can at present. But, for me, my 4MP Canon 1D can make
    excellent prints at 11x17 and the results are so good that I don't see
    why I couldn't go higher if I wanted to. Just haven't had the reason
    yet.

    So, it just depends on your use. Technically, film is superior. For my
    uses digital is exactly what I need. It just needs to be determined
    what the original poster's needs are to see if a digital body is what
    he needs.

    I wouldn't recommend anything other that a digital SLR, though. P&S
    digitals are not good for much.

    Mike


    On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 09:51:16 +0100, "Brian" <brian5blueyonder.co.uk>
    wrote:
    >
    >"Ron" <rfranksadelphia.net> wrote in message
    >news:l6pjivo18b6m9sj5kae3fke5fsedthjnd84ax.com.. .
    >> I have been using a Canon A1 for 22 years now. I still takes awesome
    >> pictures. I recently purchased a digital camera (Sony 5 mega pixels).
    >> So far, the digital camera s! Question: will digital replace film
    >> in the near future? If not, then what is a good film SLR camera to
    >> buy? I am think about a new Canon or a Nikon.
    >>
    >> Thanks.
    >
    >Ron, "if it aint broke don't fix it", stick with your A1, excellent camera,
    >and after 22 years of use you must know it inside out, the only thing you
    >will get with a new camera is a whole load of gimicky crap that will just
    >mess with you head , and you photos, they won't improve on experience and
    >will just set you back an unnecessary expense. I speak from experience,
    >changing camera's every few years just costs money.
    >Digital is still nowhere near as good as film, by quite a long way, and even
    >the super expensive "do it all" digital SLR's can t match fim, yet, but if
    >you have your heart set on a new camera, and can afford to go to big money,
    >don't go for a gimicky mass produced camera, get yourself a Leica, expensive
    >yes, gimicky no, the rolls royce of camera's, or move up to medium format
    >for extra punch,. with both of these options you can either go new or used
    >and you will get some hot camera gear. Digital is still more of a
    >snapshot format at the moment, but I eagerly await the day when it matches,
    >or even surpassed film, for quality, then I will go digital, but for the
    >time being, its a snapshot medium.
    >
    >I also eagerly await the cries of "HERETIC" from the digital lobby, the
    >meare hint that digital isnt up to it, drives them crazy, and anyone found
    >to be favouring film over digital is taken out and "stoned" to death under a
    >barrage of obsolete ccd sensors, the ones that were the dogs wotsits last
    >month, and arnt worth the price of a packet of peanuts this month.
    >
    >Sorry just my little rant for the day, before the above mentioned lobby
    >comes down on me like a biblical plague, watch and enjoy. LOL
    >
    >Brian....................
    >


    ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    [url]http://www.newsfeed.com[/url] The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
    ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
    Michael Stevens Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: Film vs. Digital

    The film versus digital debate makes me tired, but I feel like I have to
    throw 2 cents in.

    I am speaking as a digital user with 7 years of experience and the owner of
    5 digital cameras over that period of time. Before that, I admit to owning
    only one film camera, a mid-80's Canon AE-1p. I am not one to say that
    "film and digital both have their place," because I simply believe them to
    be truly interchangeable at the 35mm level (let's not talk about the medium
    and large format arenas, yet); one is not intrinsically better than the
    other. It's simply a matter of choosing your weapon, and learning how to
    wield the same.

    Ink wrote:
    > Now, when Nikon brings out a decent full-frame digital SLR,
    > I will be seriously tempted, but until then, I'll stick with film,
    although
    > the CP5000 gets used in certain situations (mostly holiday P&S work)
    Nikon has basically publically committed to the smaller 3:2 format that is
    present in its DSLRs right now. It has developed a new line of F-mount
    lenses with a smaller light circle for the smaller area which are reportedly
    some of the finer glass you can buy. There is no real motivation for Nikon
    to go full-frame because the pixel size of the next step up in resolution
    for them (which should be 12 or 14 million pixels on a 3:2 sensor) is
    basically physically beyond the capability of current film, and the smaller
    digital sensor area means that all of the 35mm lenses will also project
    properly on the 3:2 format, thus avoiding compatibility issues with older
    f-mount lenses. (NOTE on compatibility: there is an important sideline
    here... Manual focus lenses on the D100 in particular require the camera to
    be set into Manual aperture and shutter mode, and thus cannot use the
    in-camera metering system or the D-TTL flash functions available on the 35mm
    nikon equivalents. As I understand it, this is an unfortunate but
    technically necessary tradeoff between the way that film cameras meter
    during exposure versus the way the D100 has to before the exposure. This
    does not seem to be a limitation in the D1's or the new D2's)

    There seems to be nothing with respect to image recording that you can do
    with a 35mm full-frame camera that cannot be done with one or more of the
    3:2 DSLR's currently in production, and vice-versa.

    My D100 routinely produces images that when properly prepared by me and
    printed by my local lab are visually indistinguishable from 35mm prints from
    the same lab (not by my opinion, mind you [I am understandably fairly
    biased], but by those folks who have bothered to comment on my photos at
    all). When they are printed from one of the new hotsh*t printers from Canon
    or Epson, the prints are simply better. You want slides? Well, that I can't
    help you with... yet. Though I know there are several services that will
    print fair quality slides from your digital photos.

    All I know about my prints is that some of them make people go "wow." And
    of those, every wow that was followed by questions on location and equipment
    was also followed by "you're kidding... These are *digital*?"

    In the end, you should shoot what you want to shoot. If you are (or are
    becoming) a good photographer, you will be able to maximize whatever it is
    that you are shooting with. If you shoot a camera you like, using whatever
    medium you want, you are more likely to get out and use the camera than to
    leave it on a shelf somewhere waiting for a "special occasion", which is
    exactly what all of this is really about, isn't it?

    Best,

    Mark



    --
    -= Mark Justin Cecil == New Orleans, LA == [email]mjcecilbellsouth.net[/email] =-
    -= [url]http://noml.dyndns.org/mark.html[/url] =-
    -= UNIX/Storage Architecture, Implementation, and Administration =-

    "The truth is the truth, no matter what you *believe*"




    Mark Cecil Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: Film vs. Digital


    "Mark Cecil" <mjcecilbellsouth.net> wrote in message
    news:SFfWa.2051$rJ4.2039fe04.atl2.webusenet.com.. .
    > The film versus digital debate makes me tired, but I feel like I have to
    > throw 2 cents in.
    >
    > I am speaking as a digital user with 7 years of experience and the owner
    of
    > 5 digital cameras over that period of time. Before that, I admit to
    owning
    > only one film camera, a mid-80's Canon AE-1p. I am not one to say that
    > "film and digital both have their place," because I simply believe them to
    > be truly interchangeable at the 35mm level (let's not talk about the
    medium
    > and large format arenas, yet); one is not intrinsically better than the
    > other. It's simply a matter of choosing your weapon, and learning how to
    > wield the same.
    >
    > Ink wrote:
    > > Now, when Nikon brings out a decent full-frame digital SLR,
    > > I will be seriously tempted, but until then, I'll stick with film,
    > although
    > > the CP5000 gets used in certain situations (mostly holiday P&S work)
    >
    > Nikon has basically publically committed to the smaller 3:2 format that is
    > present in its DSLRs right now. It has developed a new line of F-mount
    > lenses with a smaller light circle for the smaller area which are
    reportedly
    > some of the finer glass you can buy. There is no real motivation for
    Nikon
    > to go full-frame because the pixel size of the next step up in resolution
    > for them (which should be 12 or 14 million pixels on a 3:2 sensor) is
    > basically physically beyond the capability of current film, and the
    smaller
    > digital sensor area means that all of the 35mm lenses will also project
    > properly on the 3:2 format, thus avoiding compatibility issues with older
    > f-mount lenses. (NOTE on compatibility: there is an important sideline
    > here... Manual focus lenses on the D100 in particular require the camera
    to
    > be set into Manual aperture and shutter mode, and thus cannot use the
    > in-camera metering system or the D-TTL flash functions available on the
    35mm
    > nikon equivalents. As I understand it, this is an unfortunate but
    > technically necessary tradeoff between the way that film cameras meter
    > during exposure versus the way the D100 has to before the exposure. This
    > does not seem to be a limitation in the D1's or the new D2's)
    >
    > There seems to be nothing with respect to image recording that you can do
    > with a 35mm full-frame camera that cannot be done with one or more of the
    > 3:2 DSLR's currently in production, and vice-versa.
    >
    > My D100 routinely produces images that when properly prepared by me and
    > printed by my local lab are visually indistinguishable from 35mm prints
    from
    > the same lab (not by my opinion, mind you [I am understandably fairly
    > biased], but by those folks who have bothered to comment on my photos at
    > all). When they are printed from one of the new hotsh*t printers from
    Canon
    > or Epson, the prints are simply better. You want slides? Well, that I
    can't
    > help you with... yet. Though I know there are several services that will
    > print fair quality slides from your digital photos.
    >
    > All I know about my prints is that some of them make people go "wow." And
    > of those, every wow that was followed by questions on location and
    equipment
    > was also followed by "you're kidding... These are *digital*?"
    >
    > In the end, you should shoot what you want to shoot. If you are (or are
    > becoming) a good photographer, you will be able to maximize whatever it is
    > that you are shooting with. If you shoot a camera you like, using
    whatever
    > medium you want, you are more likely to get out and use the camera than to
    > leave it on a shelf somewhere waiting for a "special occasion", which is
    > exactly what all of this is really about, isn't it?
    >
    > Best,
    >
    > Mark
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    > -= Mark Justin Cecil == New Orleans, LA == [email]mjcecilbellsouth.net[/email] =-
    > -= [url]http://noml.dyndns.org/mark.html[/url] =-
    > -= UNIX/Storage Architecture, Implementation, and Administration =-
    >
    > "The truth is the truth, no matter what you *believe*"
    >
    >
    >
    >
    All I can say to that is, well put mate


    oh yeah and. A digital man who didnt try to hang me for not getting on my
    knees to worship the great and all powerful god of the charged coupled
    device, never thought I'd see one of those, lol

    Brian................................


    Brian Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: Film vs. Digital

    "Ron" <rfranksadelphia.net> wrote in message
    news:l6pjivo18b6m9sj5kae3fke5fsedthjnd84ax.com...
    : I have been using a Canon A1 for 22 years now. I still takes awesome
    : pictures. I recently purchased a digital camera (Sony 5 mega pixels).
    : So far, the digital camera s! Question: will digital replace film
    : in the near future? If not, then what is a good film SLR camera to
    : buy? I am think about a new Canon or a Nikon.
    :
    : Thanks.

    I will echo what most have already said. Both have their advantages and
    disadvantages. I exclusively use a Sony DSC-F717. The quality is amazing
    and it's extremely flexible (the comparison to film seems, to me, to be
    equal if not better).


    Gavyn Guest

Similar Threads

  1. Digital or Film
    By Steve in forum Photography
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: September 5th, 04:57 AM
  2. Digital v Film
    By Simon Marchini in forum Photography
    Replies: 184
    Last Post: July 20th, 11:57 PM
  3. Help - 35mm digital film scanners
    By o r b s c u r e DDJ in forum Photography
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: July 11th, 07:09 PM
  4. Film vs digital
    By Per Inge Oestmoen in forum Photography
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: June 27th, 10:41 PM
  5. Digital Film / Silicon Film(tm) - for real ?
    By Ken Chandler in forum Photography
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: June 26th, 10:30 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139