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.

"Mike Henley" wrote:

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?

For your budget, a $500 used Fuji GS645S and an Epson 4870 (4800 dpi, but
real resolution is more like 2000 dpi) for another $500 is exactly on
budget. That provides a 13MP (3000 x 4400 pixel) scanned image that will
beat the pants off either scanned 35mm or 6MP digital. Of course, that's a
fixed 38mm lens with a funky rangefinder. But if you are printing at A4 on,
say, an Epson R800, your prints will look a lot better.

If you prefer the 50mm equiv. focal length, the GS645 is a belows folder
that will fit in a belt pouch.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

In article ,
(Mike Henley) wrote:

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.

Since none of your choices includes Medium Format, I suggest you not cross
post here. I'll killfile the thread for myself, but you could be more
carefull.

In article ,
(jjs) wrote:

Since none of your choices includes Medium Format, I suggest you not cross
post here. I'll killfile the thread for myself, but you could be more
carefull.

Sorry about that. You DID mention 645.

"Mike Henley" wrote in message
om...

I'll use a budget of no more than $999.99.

What is your budget for recurring costs? The incremental cost to put
a shot "in the can" and to preview it is effectively free for digital
but not for film.

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).

I know what I mean by "image quality," but the term has different
meanings for different people. To me, the single most important factor
in image quality is to properly adjust the nut behind the finder.

But if you're more concerned about technical issues such as sharpness,
given a one-time $1000 budget for equipment, of the choices you mention
a medium format camera is today's winner. New, you can purchase a
Mamiya 645E Pro Value pack with an 80mm f/2.8 lens for $775 at Adorama.
Add a lens hood ($31), cable release ($23), and something like a
Manfrotto 3001N tripod and 3030 head ($144) and you can start shooting.
You can do even better with used manual-focus medium-format (MFMF?)
gear. Recently, I purchased a Pentax 645 with a 120 insert, a 75mm
lens and a 135mm lens for about $500.

OTOH, if your definition of "image quality" includes digital editing,
with your budget you may be better off starting digital. If it
includes very selective focus or the ability to tailor apparent
perspective by choice of focal length, you may be better off with
35mm.

--
Michael Benveniste --
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.

In article , "Michael Benveniste"
wrote:

"Mike Henley" wrote in message
om...

I'll use a budget of no more than $999.99.

What is your budget for recurring costs? The incremental cost to put
a shot "in the can" and to preview it is effectively free for digital
but not for film.

I just bought my wife a little toy digital camera. The price was $279
at Best Buy. After getting her the memory and extra battery she needs for
her trip, it was $550. And now I need to get an extra portable
(pocketsized) external drive for home-to-work storage and schleping. That
was another $200. And then another extra drive to back that one (and
more); another $200. Then the printer just wasn't good enough. $300. Extra
ink cartriges: $109 for a set with backup.

Now I find that the home laptop computer has aged beyond usefull life for
digital imaging (the LCD backlight is going fast). That's almost more than
I can friggin stand.

But that's not all! With the digital pictures, one wants to share them and
now we're talking about burning CDROMs and DVDs, and paying an ISP for web
space, and there's never enough web space, so it's $$$ all over again.

Add it all up, again and again. There's NO FRIGGIN END to the cost of digital!

jjs stated:

In article , "Michael Benveniste"
wrote:

"Mike Henley" wrote in message
om...

I'll use a budget of no more than $999.99.

What is your budget for recurring costs? The incremental cost to put
a shot "in the can" and to preview it is effectively free for digital
but not for film.

I just bought my wife a little toy digital camera. The price was $279
at Best Buy. After getting her the memory and extra battery she needs for
her trip, it was $550. And now I need to get an extra portable
(pocketsized) external drive for home-to-work storage and schleping. That
was another $200. And then another extra drive to back that one (and
more); another $200. Then the printer just wasn't good enough. $300.
Extra
ink cartriges: $109 for a set with backup.

Now I find that the home laptop computer has aged beyond usefull life for
digital imaging (the LCD backlight is going fast). That's almost more
than
I can friggin stand.

But that's not all! With the digital pictures, one wants to share them
and
now we're talking about burning CDROMs and DVDs, and paying an ISP for
web
space, and there's never enough web space, so it's $$$ all over again.

Add it all up, again and again. There's NO FRIGGIN END to the cost of
digital!


Learn to draw the line, its like all things, you can STOP at any time
and say enough!! Usually its money that limits our choices, not
desire or 'lust'.

Now, go look at the costs of the same thing but with a film camera,
developing lab, print material, ability (lots of screwups), chemicals
and you can NOT carry this with you.

Dig cam is easier and more convenient, but not so cheap!!

Have Fun!!

No,no,no digital although at first sight seems cheaper (no film costs/no
developing and printing)has many hidden costs.As jjs is saying.The
competition *obliges* you to buy everything our friend mentions;anyway I
think photography and computers don't match in one sentence.CAD, yes, is
something worth about (computer aided design-all architects here/civil
engineers use it, I personally make excellent drawings with it, being a
freelance electrician- www.teiher.gr )

--
Dimitris Tzortzakakis,Iraklion Crete,Greece
Analogue technology rules-digital sucks
http://www.patriko-kreta.com
dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr the return adress is corrupted
Warning:all offending emails will be deleted, and the offender/spammer
will be put on my personal "black list".
Ï "Miguel Gonzalez" Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
. 41...
jjs stated:

In article , "Michael Benveniste"
wrote:

"Mike Henley" wrote in message
om...

I'll use a budget of no more than $999.99.

What is your budget for recurring costs? The incremental cost to put
a shot "in the can" and to preview it is effectively free for digital
but not for film.

I just bought my wife a little toy digital camera. The price was $279
at Best Buy. After getting her the memory and extra battery she needs
for
her trip, it was $550. And now I need to get an extra portable
(pocketsized) external drive for home-to-work storage and schleping.
That
was another $200. And then another extra drive to back that one (and
more); another $200. Then the printer just wasn't good enough. $300.
Extra
ink cartriges: $109 for a set with backup.

Now I find that the home laptop computer has aged beyond usefull life
for
digital imaging (the LCD backlight is going fast). That's almost more
than
I can friggin stand.

But that's not all! With the digital pictures, one wants to share them
and
now we're talking about burning CDROMs and DVDs, and paying an ISP for
web
space, and there's never enough web space, so it's $$$ all over again.

Add it all up, again and again. There's NO FRIGGIN END to the cost of
digital!


Learn to draw the line, its like all things, you can STOP at any time
and say enough!! Usually its money that limits our choices, not
desire or 'lust'.

Now, go look at the costs of the same thing but with a film camera,
developing lab, print material, ability (lots of screwups), chemicals
and you can NOT carry this with you.

Dig cam is easier and more convenient, but not so cheap!!

Have Fun!!

"jjs" wrote in message
...

I just bought my wife a little toy digital camera. The price was $279
at Best Buy. After getting her the memory and extra battery she needs for
her trip, it was $550. And now I need to get an extra portable
(pocketsized) external drive for home-to-work storage and schleping. That
was another $200. And then another extra drive to back that one (and
more); another $200. Then the printer just wasn't good enough. $300. Extra
ink cartriges: $109 for a set with backup.

Now I find that the home laptop computer has aged beyond usefull life for
digital imaging (the LCD backlight is going fast). That's almost more than
I can friggin stand.

But that's not all! With the digital pictures, one wants to share them and
now we're talking about burning CDROMs and DVDs, and paying an ISP for web
space, and there's never enough web space, so it's $$$ all over again.

Add it all up, again and again. There's NO FRIGGIN END to the cost of
digital!


I can relate to that. I bought a nice little digicam a year and a half ago.
When I realized how much I would have to spend on accessories and
peripherals to make it worthwhile, I decided instead to return the camera
and to stick with film. Those who talk about film and processing costs can
keep talking all they want about it, but there's no way that for the average
amateur, film comes even close to matching the overall costs of digital. And
that's not even including the 3-4 year old computer that mya be perfectly
fine for years to come just for word processing, web surfing and email, but
which becomes woefully inadequate for digital imaging in a
headspinningly-short time. And my experience was just with a digicam that
cost about $700 Canadian. Check the prices out for digital SLRs! Staggering,
especially when you consider that any film SLR every built, now or in the
past, can take the same pictures (and actually infinitely better, when it
comes to balancing between bright highlights and dark shadows). There's no
marrying of computers with photography for me. If the pros are doing that,
they can have it.

Pierre

"jjs" wrote in message:

Add it all up, again and again. There's NO FRIGGIN END to the cost of
digital!

Substitute the word "photography" for the word "digital," and you have
a lament that predates the word "shutterbug."

Cost comparisons only work if you ensure you're comparing similar
processes. I limited my comment to the "shoot and preview" part of
the process for that reason.

In your situation, your wife is doing things she wouldn't do with
film photography. Take those portable external drives as an example.
Without digital, she'd be hauling around prints or trays of slides
instead. Physical limitations would then force her to be more
selective.

The same comment applies to the computer and printer. Chances are
your wife could take her memory cards to the same place as you would
take a some film and get the same quality of prints. If you want
the same "print at home" capability with film, you'd either need a
darkroom, or the same computer and printer _plus_ a scanner.

Presumably, your wife would want to share the photographs even if
they were made on film. So if you forced her to use a film camera,
she'd just have a CD made at processing time. You'd end up with
more CD's to store, plus the same or higher web hosting costs.

Digital _can_ have a cost disadvantage in the initial storage of
exposures. Using a CF card to store images is more expensive than
storing them as exposed rolls of film. But some of that is offset
by the ability to review and delete the images inside the camera.

My overall diagnosis is a case of packratitis. Whether it is an
chronic case or merely acute remains to be seen.

--
Michael Benveniste --
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.