A Question About Film vs Digital - NO WARS PLEASE

"Walt Hanks" wrote in message
...


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).



The answer may be staring you in the face.

Shoot with both. Why agonize over choosing one format over the other? Each
format has its strengths and weaknesses.

Especially if one is heavily invested in film cameras and lenses, what sense
does it make to dump it all--at least until one has determined that digital
will fulfill all of his particular photographic needs?

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 08:43:10 -0600, "me" wrote:

"Walt Hanks" wrote in message
...
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.

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).

Those lenses will never work as well on a digital capture device as they do
on a film camera.

Ah. Not only can you compare digital and film without ever having
tried a digital camera, but now you can see into the future too!

Truly amazing.

BTW, The Hubble space telescope is digital, as is NASA's Pancam on the
Spirit Rover (of the Mars Mission) which uses a 1Mpixel digital
camera. Film, not an option.

--
Owamanga!

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 08:43:10 -0600, "me" wrote:

"Walt Hanks" wrote in message
...
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.

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).

Those lenses will never work as well on a digital capture device as they do
on a film camera.

Ah. Not only can you compare digital and film without ever having
tried a digital camera, but now you can see into the future too!

Truly amazing.

BTW, The Hubble space telescope is digital, as is NASA's Pancam on the
Spirit Rover (of the Mars Mission) which uses a 1Mpixel digital
camera. Film, not an option.

--
Owamanga!

In article ,
PGG wrote:

Which is no problem. All the people who claim you HAVE to use a computer a
lot with digital seem to think that labs don't exist for digital. Every one
hour photo place I've seen in the last year or two has a big sign saying
"Prints made from you digital files"

Labs print digital files straight-up. With a negative, they assume that
corrections need to be made.

Not true in the general case. A friend of mine was recently caught out by a
lab which went and auto adjusted the levels on all his carefully prepared
digital files, just as they would have done with prints from negatives.

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.

When you're used to an SLR, you'll reach the limits on a point&shoot pretty
quickly...

"PGG" wrote in message
newsan.2005.01.10.14.39.07.560000@NO_SP_A_Myahoo .com...

Which is no problem. All the people who claim you HAVE to use a computer
a
lot with digital seem to think that labs don't exist for digital. Every
one
hour photo place I've seen in the last year or two has a big sign saying
"Prints made from you digital files"

Labs print digital files straight-up. With a negative, they assume that
corrections need to be made.



False, they make correction to digital too. If they don't, go to another
lab.
I only correct the pictures for which I need to correct only a part of the
pictu
remove red eyes, add fill-in flash effect etc.

"PGG" wrote in message
newsan.2005.01.10.14.39.07.560000@NO_SP_A_Myahoo .com...

Which is no problem. All the people who claim you HAVE to use a computer
a
lot with digital seem to think that labs don't exist for digital. Every
one
hour photo place I've seen in the last year or two has a big sign saying
"Prints made from you digital files"

Labs print digital files straight-up. With a negative, they assume that
corrections need to be made.



False, they make correction to digital too. If they don't, go to another
lab.
I only correct the pictures for which I need to correct only a part of the
pictu
remove red eyes, add fill-in flash effect etc.

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:54:23 GMT, Chris Brown
wrote:

In article ,
PGG wrote:

Which is no problem. All the people who claim you HAVE to use a computer a
lot with digital seem to think that labs don't exist for digital. Every one
hour photo place I've seen in the last year or two has a big sign saying
"Prints made from you digital files"

Labs print digital files straight-up. With a negative, they assume that
corrections need to be made.

Not true in the general case. A friend of mine was recently caught out by a
lab which went and auto adjusted the levels on all his carefully prepared
digital files, just as they would have done with prints from negatives.

Yes, it won't be long before they find a way to add scratches, folds
and fingerprints to the digital stuff too.

Kodak's 'perfect touch' is already creeping over to digital.

--
Owamanga!

Walt Hanks wrote:

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.

I would not say so. It is in well-lit scenes film shines because of
its higher resolution than all but the very most expensive digital SLR's.

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

This is precisely the other way around, since low light conditions is
the one area in which digital is conclusively superior to film.

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.)

The point is that with digital, you are dependent on batteries.
Digital cameras draw enormous amounts of battery energy, but I would
say that this is not a bigger problem than with battery-dependent film
bodies.

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

Not entirely true. Canon has good film bodies like the EOS 3 and the
EOS 1V, but they do not have anything to match the ultra-reliable
FMx-series with cameras that do not need batteries at all. Nikon also
has the best and most dependable film scanners, which among other
things have LED's for their light source, so these scanners (LS-50 and
LS-5000) can be expected to last longer than others.

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).

If you want a high-end body like the 1D II and 1Ds II I would say that
Canon is well ahead. I would also say that Canon's use of Ni-MH
instead of Lithium-Ion in their bodies is a great advantage, contrary
to popular belief. This because Lithium-Ion batteries will age rapidly
and be useless in two to three years even if not used at all, whereas
spare Ni-MH batteries, given a little charge every now and then, can
be stored and will last for many years.

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

I would say that if low-light photography is important, digital is
strongly recommended. Otherwise, film holds its own, and yields better
results than any sub-$4000 digital camera.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway

Chris Brown wrote:

In article ,
PGG wrote:

Labs print digital files straight-up. With a negative, they assume that
corrections need to be made.

Not true in the general case. A friend of mine was recently caught out by a
lab which went and auto adjusted the levels on all his carefully prepared
digital files, just as they would have done with prints from negatives.

If a lab routinely uses Auto Levels, it is a definitely incompetent
lab. Auto Levels is a destructive process, blowing highlights and
greatly reducing dynamic range in all pictures whenever used.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway