Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras that use film?
 

If people like both of them why don't manufacturers make a camera that uses both
technologies like those dual DVD/VHS players?

Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras that use film?
 

wrote in message
news:40104918.9757.6ABAB2D@localhost...
If people like both of them why don't manufacturers make a camera that
uses both
technologies like those dual DVD/VHS players?


WTF? Crappy film cameras?
I don't know what you are doing, trolling like that.

I will still answer your question though:

Leica makes a camera that is both a DSLR and a 35mm SLR.
It is however, too expensive, and uses Leica Glass, which is entirely out of
the realm of possibility for most people.
Leica glass is also becoming out dated, with lenses from canon and Nikon
becoming ever more advanced.

Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film?
 

Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras that use film?
 

wrote in message
news:40104918.9757.6ABAB2D@localhost...
If people like both of them why don't manufacturers make a camera that
uses both
technologies like those dual DVD/VHS players?

Not easy to do. Affordable low-cost digital sensors are a lot smaller than
film and need a different kind of lens in order to work well.

For a long time Kodak has been trying to sell people on the idea of taking
pictures on film and having them digitized at the processing lab.

Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras that use film?
 

Michael A. Covington writes

If people like both of them why don't manufacturers make a camera that
uses both
technologies like those dual DVD/VHS players?

Not easy to do. Affordable low-cost digital sensors are a lot smaller than
film and need a different kind of lens in order to work well.

Rumors of a Nikon F6 with film and digital backs won't go away, though
about the only thing one can predict about it is that if it ever appears
it won't be cheap!

--
Hil

Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film?
 

Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film?
 

If people like both of them why don't manufacturers make a camera that uses both
technologies like those dual DVD/VHS players?


That's simple; The camera would be far too expensive, too cumbersome and
most people would never use the film feature. Only the professional
photog would use the digital feature for test shooting.

Most of the medium format cameras have removable backs and can
take a digital back for straight shooting or test shooting.
__________________________________________________ ____________________


IMHO

Film produces the most cost effective HIGH RES Image compared to
the cost of an expensive 5, 6 or higher MegaPixal Camera. If you are
a professional Photog that justifies the cost and can produce a
considerable profit, then High Res Digital cameras are the tools
that offer you another method of producing Images.

As for Picture quality is concerned, any Digital system that works
at 6 MegaPixal or Higher and choosing the correct lens produce amazing
Images.


Pro
Digital - Can use the memory indefinitely as you unload images to PC's
Digital - No processing costs if all work remains Digital
Film - No waiting for Memory to store image. Shooting models who
change position for example.
Slide & Negative Film - Can be digitally scanned and filled away for
future reference.
Film - Can produce much larger Images more cost effectively than does
Digital

Digital - Is good for Still Life shooting, Scenic and static subjects.
Film - is Just as good; In some cases better than Digital in color
Saturation.


Cons

Film Damages easily
Film - Added cost for processing.
Film - Can be damaged during processing.
Film - Scratches easily.

Digital - At the present time, Professional Digital Cams are cost
prohibitive. Hopefully competition among the major camera manufacturer's
will eventually bring down the cost. Though I doubt it.
e.g. 5 & 6 Megapixal Cams. $900 - $1900 and the Kodak 15 MegaPixal
costs $10,000.00 or more !!!!

Like all other product limitations, 5 & 6 Megapixal Digital Cams do not
produce images larger than 11 x 14 inches with High Picture quality.
Film on the other hand still produce images at 11 x 14 and higher.

Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film?
 

They were selling the new Kodak 14 megapixel camera (with Nikon lenses) at
Ritz and I asked them how it compared in output to my venerable Olympus OM2.
The OM2, they said, beats it up. It will take a while for digital to equal
35mm and it will take a very long while for it to equal medium format.
Someday it probably will. But it isn't someday yet, and all the digital
cameras you can buy today will be useless museum pieces in a few years when
compared with what is coming down the road.
--
Michael Weinstein | "Never underestimate the power of stupid
Nashua, NH | people in large groups."

From: Newsman
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.fil m+labs
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 21:05:40 GMT
Subject: Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras that use
film?



If people like both of them why don't manufacturers make a camera that uses
both
technologies like those dual DVD/VHS players?


That's simple; The camera would be far too expensive, too cumbersome and
most people would never use the film feature. Only the professional
photog would use the digital feature for test shooting.

Most of the medium format cameras have removable backs and can
take a digital back for straight shooting or test shooting.
__________________________________________________ ____________________


IMHO

Film produces the most cost effective HIGH RES Image compared to
the cost of an expensive 5, 6 or higher MegaPixal Camera. If you are
a professional Photog that justifies the cost and can produce a
considerable profit, then High Res Digital cameras are the tools
that offer you another method of producing Images.

As for Picture quality is concerned, any Digital system that works
at 6 MegaPixal or Higher and choosing the correct lens produce amazing
Images.


Pro
Digital - Can use the memory indefinitely as you unload images to PC's
Digital - No processing costs if all work remains Digital
Film - No waiting for Memory to store image. Shooting models who
change position for example.
Slide & Negative Film - Can be digitally scanned and filled away for
future reference.
Film - Can produce much larger Images more cost effectively than does
Digital

Digital - Is good for Still Life shooting, Scenic and static subjects.
Film - is Just as good; In some cases better than Digital in color
Saturation.


Cons

Film Damages easily
Film - Added cost for processing.
Film - Can be damaged during processing.
Film - Scratches easily.

Digital - At the present time, Professional Digital Cams are cost
prohibitive. Hopefully competition among the major camera manufacturer's
will eventually bring down the cost. Though I doubt it.
e.g. 5 & 6 Megapixal Cams. $900 - $1900 and the Kodak 15 MegaPixal
costs $10,000.00 or more !!!!

Like all other product limitations, 5 & 6 Megapixal Digital Cams do not
produce images larger than 11 x 14 inches with High Picture quality.
Film on the other hand still produce images at 11 x 14 and higher.

Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film?
 

They were selling the new Kodak 14 megapixel camera (with Nikon lenses) at
Ritz and I asked them how it compared in output to my venerable Olympus
OM2.
The OM2, they said, beats it up. It will take a while for digital to equal
35mm and it will take a very long while for it to equal medium format.
Someday it probably will. But it isn't someday yet, and all the digital
cameras you can buy today will be useless museum pieces in a few years
when
compared with what is coming down the road.

Hmmm, you trust the judgment of the counter person at Ritz ???????

John

Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film?
 

Hmmm, you trust the judgment of the counter person at Ritz ???????

But he's probably right! Look at recent history. Never the less the top end
stuff like Sinar, Leaf et al takes a bit of beating, problems aside.