A Question About Film vs Digital - NO WARS PLEASE

At the risk of starting another flame war, I would like some actual
discussion and advice please. Here's the situation.

A good friend, who is an amateur photographer with significant latent
talent, has asked my advice in replacing his camera. His F-70 has bitten
the dust. We have been discussing Film vs Digital for some time and have
come to the following conclusions.

1. Digital is an excellent choice for well-lit scenes at moderate
temperatures and the best choice for studio work.
2. Digital cameras are still inferior to film in low light situations.
3. Digital is still inferior to film when conditions are less than ideal,
such as on a winter camping and hiking trip with temps below 30 degrees, or
a Canyon Lands bicycle tour with temps over 100 degrees. (Both Nikon and
Canon say that the operating temp ranges of their top cameras are 30 to 100
degrees F.)
4) Canon makes superior digital cameras, but inferior film cameras.
5) The advantages Canon provides over Nikon in the digital realm are not
significant enough for an amateur, even an avid one, to toss out a well
developed Nikon system (He has 6 lenses and a lot of other equipment).

So, we are planning to go down and buy an F5 or F6 tomorrow. Is there
something we missed in our considerations?

BTW, money is only a minor issue for this situation.

--
Walt Hanks

The truth of the matter:

Digital is more convienient in terms of speed, but much more expensive
to get equivalent quality - DSLR, computer, all that time messing around
in Photoshop, oh, and then the pricey inkjet prints. But at least you
can see the results straight away.

But get a decent slide projector for a fraction of the price and take a
few rolls of Fuji or Kodak or whatever on a camera costing 1/3 or 1/4
the price of an equivalent DSLR and compare those translucent results
with you "please don't smudge them" inkjet prints.

And the enlargements of the projected slides are much bigger than those
costly A4/A3 Epson prints .....

Pity I have to wait a week to get the slides back from the lab ...

Take your pick

Walt Hanks wrote:
At the risk of starting another flame war, I would like some actual
discussion and advice please. Here's the situation.

A good friend, who is an amateur photographer with significant latent

talent, has asked my advice in replacing his camera. His F-70 has
bitten
the dust. We have been discussing Film vs Digital for some time and
have
come to the following conclusions.

1. Digital is an excellent choice for well-lit scenes at moderate
temperatures and the best choice for studio work.
2. Digital cameras are still inferior to film in low light
situations.
3. Digital is still inferior to film when conditions are less than
ideal,
such as on a winter camping and hiking trip with temps below 30
degrees, or
a Canyon Lands bicycle tour with temps over 100 degrees. (Both Nikon
and
Canon say that the operating temp ranges of their top cameras are 30
to 100
degrees F.)
4) Canon makes superior digital cameras, but inferior film cameras.
5) The advantages Canon provides over Nikon in the digital realm are
not
significant enough for an amateur, even an avid one, to toss out a
well
developed Nikon system (He has 6 lenses and a lot of other
equipment).

So, we are planning to go down and buy an F5 or F6 tomorrow. Is
there
something we missed in our considerations?

BTW, money is only a minor issue for this situation.

--
Walt Hanks



Then get a Leica R9. It can be both a film camera and digital. It soon
will have a digital back available, and since the cost should be no
object, get an array of Leica lenses for it. The best lenses on the
planet.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Then get a Leica R9. It can be both a film camera and digital. It soon
will have a digital back available, and since the cost should be no
object, get an array of Leica lenses for it. The best lenses on the
planet.


He's wealthy for a reason. I said cost was a minor issue. I didn't say he
had 20K to throw around.

Thanks for the thoughts though.

Walt

Walt Hanks wrote:
At the risk of starting another flame war, I would like some actual
discussion and advice please. Here's the situation.

A good friend, who is an amateur photographer with significant latent

talent, has asked my advice in replacing his camera. His F-70 has
bitten
the dust. We have been discussing Film vs Digital for some time and
have
come to the following conclusions.

1. Digital is an excellent choice for well-lit scenes at moderate
temperatures and the best choice for studio work.
2. Digital cameras are still inferior to film in low light
situations.

While this may be true, it still has to be a great advantage to just dial up
any ISO you want from, "frame to frame".

Why not?

In article , Walt Hanks
wrote:

So, we are planning to go down and buy an F5 or F6 tomorrow. Is there
something we missed in our considerations?

I'd say your summary is right on target, with the proviso that you
amend the words "somewhat" and "slightly" to the statements in point 4.
The advantages to either brand in either format aren't that large.

(Except fpr the full-frame sensor Canon offers in one digital model.
I'll write Nikon any size check they want when they offer one of
those...)

It really does not matter which is better. I suppose that in some areas
and circumstances film is better and in others digital is better. For
sure film is better for someone who is a clutz when it comes to
computers for it you do not have a good multiple backup scheme you will
eventually loose your collection.

The best thing to do if you have a nice film camera is to purchase a
good point and shoot 5mp or higher for around $300 to $500 and use both,
each when it is most appropriate.

PGG wrote:

On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 16:42:01 -0500, Walt Hanks wrote:



At the risk of starting another flame war, I would like some actual
discussion and advice please. Here's the situation.

A good friend, who is an amateur photographer with significant latent
talent, has asked my advice in replacing his camera. His F-70 has bitten
the dust. We have been discussing Film vs Digital for some time and have
come to the following conclusions.

1. Digital is an excellent choice for well-lit scenes at moderate
temperatures and the best choice for studio work.



False. Digital SLRs, like the Canon 20D, perform better at ISO800 and
beyond.



2. Digital cameras are still inferior to film in low light situations.



False



3. Digital is still inferior to film when conditions are less than ideal,
such as on a winter camping and hiking trip with temps below 30 degrees, or
a Canyon Lands bicycle tour with temps over 100 degrees. (Both Nikon and
Canon say that the operating temp ranges of their top cameras are 30 to 100
degrees F.)



True. Digital cameras are more prone to water.



4) Canon makes superior digital cameras, but inferior film cameras.



False. Canon makes superb film cameras as well.



5) The advantages Canon provides over Nikon in the digital realm are not
significant enough for an amateur, even an avid one, to toss out a well
developed Nikon system (He has 6 lenses and a lot of other equipment).




True



So, we are planning to go down and buy an F5 or F6 tomorrow. Is there
something we missed in our considerations?

BTW, money is only a minor issue for this situation.



If money is not a huge issue, then get both. How about a Nikon F100 and a
Nikon D70?

In article ,
Walt Hanks wrote:

1. Digital is an excellent choice for well-lit scenes at moderate
temperatures and the best choice for studio work.

I disagree - the studio with good, consistent lighting is where film
excells, because you can use large formats, giving you unbeatable image
quality, and you don't need the instant exposure feedback of digital so
much, because the lighting is a known factor.

2. Digital cameras are still inferior to film in low light situations.

Other way around. Digital cameras don't suffer from reciprocity failure, and
with a modern DSLR, long exposure noise is a complete non-issue.

3. Digital is still inferior to film when conditions are less than ideal,
such as on a winter camping and hiking trip with temps below 30 degrees, or
a Canyon Lands bicycle tour with temps over 100 degrees. (Both Nikon and
Canon say that the operating temp ranges of their top cameras are 30 to 100
degrees F.)

I've used my Canon DSLR in temperatures well outside that range without
problems. The main problem with using digital cameras in nasty environmental
conditions is simply that they cost more, so it's more financially painful
if you break them.

4) Canon makes superior digital cameras, but inferior film cameras.

Their sensor technology is very well regarded, if that's what you mean.

5) The advantages Canon provides over Nikon in the digital realm are not
significant enough for an amateur, even an avid one, to toss out a well
developed Nikon system (He has 6 lenses and a lot of other equipment).

With a digital SLR system, as with a 35mm SLR system, bodies come and go.
The lens system is what you're buying in to. Look at it as buying a digital
body for existing lenses if a large collection of lenses exists. The
differences between digital SLR bodies of a given generation aren't so
significant that any of them won't be outclassed by any of the bodies of the
next generation, regardless of manufacturer.

In article ,
Transparency wrote:

And the enlargements of the projected slides are much bigger than those
costly A4/A3 Epson prints .....

If big enlargements are what you're after, why are you messing about with
35mm?

Pity I have to wait a week to get the slides back from the lab ...

Change labs - mine will do E6 processing of 35mm or 120 on a same-day basis.
I drop them off on the way to work, and pick them up on the way back.