If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
below $1000 film vs digital
I have a budding collection of reasonably inexpensive but good retro
compact film cameras and I'm considering purchasing a more serious "photographer's" one to start using soon, as i safely know now that I do like this hobby. I'll use a budget of no more than $999.99. I care most about *image quality*, as this will be the only reason I'd want to step up from my film compacts. By image quality I mean both in its original form (film/digital) or transferred to other media (printed/scanned). The choices i have are either... - A quality film SLR (very easy to get within budget, heck, even $200 is enough for the pentax zx/mz-m). - A digital SLR (canon or nikon; new or like new from ebay). - an all-in-one 8mp digital, such as the canon or olympus. How do these compare? (on the eventual *image quality* criterium only, across media, regardless of eventual use of the image. I don't care much about other features. Also, regardless of running costs, as I have all I'd need to run a digital camera, from computer and peripherals including memory chips, and film isn't expensive to run after all when all things considered, it'd cost me ~$5 per 35mm film total, purchased and developed, which isn't a lot considering it cost me a few times that in day expenses when i went to a scenic spot nearby to take pictures.) Additionally, within that same budget, i'm also considering a Medium format camera, such as a 645 rangefinder (on *image quality* criterium only. Film isn't much more expensive than 35mm, and weight and size no issue as none of above will fit in a belt-pouch anyway). How would it compare to the above, especially to digital SLR? Even more, how would it compare to state-of-the-art digital such as that $8000 canon, or the 14mp new Kodak, because if it is favorably comparable it may mean it'll be better for me than affordable digital for some many years to come. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
New Leica digital back info.... | Barney | 35mm Photo Equipment | 19 | June 30th 04 12:45 AM |
below $1000 film vs digital | Sabineellen | 35mm Photo Equipment | 8 | June 15th 04 07:13 AM |
The first film of the Digital Revolution is here.... | Todd Bailey | Film & Labs | 0 | May 27th 04 08:12 AM |
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? | Michael Weinstein, M.D. | In The Darkroom | 13 | January 24th 04 09:51 PM |