Film Compact Vs Digital Compact.

I sick of seeing all these film Vs Digital pages on the net comparing
film and digital SLRs. For a start no matter what result they get
(either in favour of film or digital) its nearly always inacurate since
they are comparing the images rather than prints and the film images
are rarly Drum scanned and even if they were they are still 3rd party
images, I am bored of them and no longer bother.

What I would like to see is a Film Compact Vs Digital Compact test, Ill
be putting my Fuji F10 up against my Olypus XA soon. Ill then get the
results printed at 9x6 and then scan the prints, Pointless I know, but
its really to settle an argument I got into and to be honist at ISO 400
(witch the test will be caried out at) I think the result is a forgone
conclusion.

Are there any other links to Film P&S Vs Digital P&S tests.

wrote in message
oups.com...
I sick of seeing all these film Vs Digital pages on the net comparing
film and digital SLRs. For a start no matter what result they get
(either in favour of film or digital) its nearly always inacurate since
they are comparing the images rather than prints and the film images
are rarly Drum scanned and even if they were they are still 3rd party
images, I am bored of them and no longer bother.

What I would like to see is a Film Compact Vs Digital Compact test, Ill
be putting my Fuji F10 up against my Olypus XA soon. Ill then get the
results printed at 9x6 and then scan the prints, Pointless I know, but
its really to settle an argument I got into and to be honist at ISO 400
(witch the test will be caried out at) I think the result is a forgone
conclusion.

Are there any other links to Film P&S Vs Digital P&S tests.

Been shooting since i was 11. 21 years. The digitals win. Best contestant
was the powershot 105. It was enormous. Didn't always focus on what i
thought it should but did a mostly good job. Sharpest lens going.

"Didn't always focus on what i
thought it should but did a mostly good job."

and thats the problem with digital P&S.
If you dont focus thru the LCD, but thru the viewer, you
dont see the focus marks, and as a result your subject might
be out of focus.
That really ****es me off.
Why are there no focus marks in digital P&S view hole as there are in
film P&S?!

Mr.Happy wrote:
"Didn't always focus on what i
thought it should but did a mostly good job."

and thats the problem with digital P&S.
If you dont focus thru the LCD, but thru the viewer, you
dont see the focus marks, and as a result your subject might
be out of focus.
That really ****es me off.
Why are there no focus marks in digital P&S view hole as there are in
film P&S?!

Perhaps because it would only be an approximation anyway...due to it not
being a through-the-lens viewfinder...which leads to varying focus points
depending on distance, zoom, etc.

With an SLR, there is no question as to focus points, because you're looking
through the lens and the focus mechanism stays consitently placed in
relation to its appearance in teh viewfinder. This isn't the case with the
optical viewfinder in most point&shoots.

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
news:VzE4f.2128$UF4.925@fed1read02...
Mr.Happy wrote:
"Didn't always focus on what i
thought it should but did a mostly good job."

and thats the problem with digital P&S.
If you dont focus thru the LCD, but thru the viewer, you
dont see the focus marks, and as a result your subject might
be out of focus.
That really ****es me off.
Why are there no focus marks in digital P&S view hole as there are in
film P&S?!

Perhaps because it would only be an approximation anyway...due to it not
being a through-the-lens viewfinder...which leads to varying focus points
depending on distance, zoom, etc.

With an SLR, there is no question as to focus points, because you're
looking through the lens and the focus mechanism stays consitently placed
in relation to its appearance in teh viewfinder. This isn't the case with
the optical viewfinder in most point&shoots.

That's right. This is the great advantage of slr's, whether film or digital.
WYSIWYG.....

I seriously Doubt the digital will win this test, not because its
digital but because they have sensors smaller than that of Minox
cameras, I am not say a Minox Would beat a Digital P&S I am saying I
think the XA will, Especially Concidering the fact the size difference
is greater than that of between 35mm and 4x5.

"Mr.Happy" wrote in message
oups.com...
"Didn't always focus on what i
thought it should but did a mostly good job."

and thats the problem with digital P&S.
If you dont focus thru the LCD, but thru the viewer, you
dont see the focus marks, and as a result your subject might
be out of focus.
That really ****es me off.
Why are there no focus marks in digital P&S view hole as there are in
film P&S?!

1.Yes there are focus marks on digital. At least there is on my hpR707.

2. Apologies ofr not making myself clear but, i should have said "The
digitals win. Best FILM contestant was the powershot 105. It was enormous
Didn't always focus on what i
thought it should but did a mostly good job. Sharpest lens going. Gave
my A1 and FD 70-210mm a run for its money. The shutter delay on the
powershot was as bad or as worse as any digital camera.

ian lincoln wrote:

2. Apologies ofr not making myself clear but, i should have said
"The digitals win. Best FILM contestant was the powershot 105.
It was enormous Didn't always focus on what i thought it should
but did a mostly good job. Sharpest lens going. Gave my A1 and
FD 70-210mm a run for its money. The shutter delay on the powershot
was as bad or as worse as any digital camera.

Let's see... you're saying an enormously large and heavy digicam,
though it often doesn't focus correctly and has a long shutter delay,
and has a lens that doesn't go wider than 38mm, is better than one of
the bestter film P&S cameras? Especially compared to a manual SLR?!?

Seems like you're saying just the opposite of what you mean.

Let's for example take the Minolta FZE/Riva 28-75. It accepts
ISO 400-800 film that is 2-3 stops faster than most digicams.
It almost always produces in-focus pictures, especially if you
know how to use it. The shutter lag is less than 1/4 second,
and it can take one picture per second for up to 37-38 frames
(the "buffer" of film).

Sometimes my friends produce excellent pictures with their digicams.
In good lighting, with the sun at their backs, they can take photos
that are technically superior to what my Minolta FZE produces. But
in all other conditions, no. Especially flash portraits.

The Yashica T4*Zoom is similar to the FZE and still available.

"Bill Tuthill" wrote in message ...
ian lincoln wrote:

2. Apologies ofr not making myself clear but, i should have said
"The digitals win. Best FILM contestant was the powershot 105.
It was enormous Didn't always focus on what i thought it should
but did a mostly good job. Sharpest lens going. Gave my A1 and
FD 70-210mm a run for its money. The shutter delay on the powershot
was as bad or as worse as any digital camera.

Let's see... you're saying an enormously large and heavy digicam,
though it often doesn't focus correctly and has a long shutter delay,
and has a lens that doesn't go wider than 38mm, is better than one of
the bestter film P&S cameras? Especially compared to a manual SLR?!?

Seems like you're saying just the opposite of what you mean.

no i'm saying an enormously large and heavy FILM CAM (just as i put in
capitals above) was the closest i got to a decent film contestant to my
digital point and shoots.

wrote:

I sick of seeing all these film Vs Digital pages on the net comparing
film and digital SLRs. For a start no matter what result they get
(either in favour of film or digital) its nearly always inacurate since
they are comparing the images rather than prints and the film images
are rarly Drum scanned and even if they were they are still 3rd party
images, I am bored of them and no longer bother.

What I would like to see is a Film Compact Vs Digital Compact test, Ill
be putting my Fuji F10 up against my Olypus XA soon. Ill then get the
results printed at 9x6 and then scan the prints, Pointless I know, but
its really to settle an argument I got into and to be honist at ISO 400
(witch the test will be caried out at) I think the result is a forgone
conclusion.

The Fuji F10 has a much smaller sensor size than 35 mm film frame. In a
practical sense, that will mean more apparent depth of field in any
settings matching your Olympus XA. So basically any images with lots of
background detail might actually seem sharper from the Fuji F10. Of
course, at 9" by 6" there will be very little difference between the two
cameras. Maybe you should try out a larger print.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com