A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » Other Photographic Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Film vs. digital cameras



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 20th 07, 04:35 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,uk.rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.misc,alt.photography,rec.photo.equipment.misc
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 182
Default Film vs. digital cameras

I went back and look at old photos in my attic and surprised to see
that some of photos that I took years ago using a cheap Nikon One
touch range finder camera were extremely sharp and good quality. I
used that camera for a number of years, outdoor photos in rain or
shine conditions, has some tree gooey sap all over at one time. It is
now resting and not used, but I think it is still working.
My question is whether the digital cameras made nowadays is better or
at least the same as the old cameras, in term of its quality and
performance. I do not use dark room anymore as it can end up expensive
(I used to in the old days), so photo qualities in those days mostly
were dependent on where I sent the film for printing in the lab. I
never realize looking of photos taken by my digital cameras until I
compare them against old regular cameras. Is it the camera, the
condition when the photo taken, the technology or all of the above?
Thanks for comment/discussion

  #2  
Old May 20th 07, 05:33 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,uk.rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.misc,alt.photography,rec.photo.equipment.misc
Don Stauffer in Minnesota
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 464
Default Film vs. digital cameras

On May 20, 10:35 am, wrote:
I went back and look at old photos in my attic and surprised to see
that some of photos that I took years ago using a cheap Nikon One
touch range finder camera were extremely sharp and good quality. I
used that camera for a number of years, outdoor photos in rain or
shine conditions, has some tree gooey sap all over at one time. It is
now resting and not used, but I think it is still working.
My question is whether the digital cameras made nowadays is better or
at least the same as the old cameras, in term of its quality and
performance. I do not use dark room anymore as it can end up expensive
(I used to in the old days), so photo qualities in those days mostly
were dependent on where I sent the film for printing in the lab. I
never realize looking of photos taken by my digital cameras until I
compare them against old regular cameras. Is it the camera, the
condition when the photo taken, the technology or all of the above?
Thanks for comment/discussion


Depends on exactly what you mean by quality and performance, and most
important, what FILM you are using. Modern 10MP digitals are about at
the performance of many film cameras with color film and moderate
speed. They do not have the dynamic range of good B&W film, nor
resolution of something like Plus X in dilute developer.

They have an edge in linearity over some of the faster films if you
shoot in RAW.

  #3  
Old May 20th 07, 06:24 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,uk.rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.misc,alt.photography,rec.photo.equipment.misc
Stan Beck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 37
Default Film vs. digital cameras

The most important thing is the person tripping the shutter. Both film and
digital can give good results.

--
I really hate to eat on an empty stomach.

Stan Beck From New Orleans to Brandon MS
To reply, remove 101 from address.
***

wrote in message
oups.com...
I went back and look at old photos in my attic and surprised to see
that some of photos that I took years ago using a cheap Nikon One
touch range finder camera were extremely sharp and good quality. I
used that camera for a number of years, outdoor photos in rain or
shine conditions, has some tree gooey sap all over at one time. It is
now resting and not used, but I think it is still working.
My question is whether the digital cameras made nowadays is better or
at least the same as the old cameras, in term of its quality and
performance. I do not use dark room anymore as it can end up expensive
(I used to in the old days), so photo qualities in those days mostly
were dependent on where I sent the film for printing in the lab. I
never realize looking of photos taken by my digital cameras until I
compare them against old regular cameras. Is it the camera, the
condition when the photo taken, the technology or all of the above?
Thanks for comment/discussion



  #4  
Old May 20th 07, 06:45 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,uk.rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.misc,alt.photography,rec.photo.equipment.misc
Matt Ion
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 583
Default Film vs. digital cameras

wrote:
I went back and look at old photos in my attic and surprised to see
that some of photos that I took years ago using a cheap Nikon One
touch range finder camera were extremely sharp and good quality. I
used that camera for a number of years, outdoor photos in rain or
shine conditions, has some tree gooey sap all over at one time. It is
now resting and not used, but I think it is still working.
My question is whether the digital cameras made nowadays is better or
at least the same as the old cameras, in term of its quality and
performance. I do not use dark room anymore as it can end up expensive
(I used to in the old days), so photo qualities in those days mostly
were dependent on where I sent the film for printing in the lab. I
never realize looking of photos taken by my digital cameras until I
compare them against old regular cameras. Is it the camera, the
condition when the photo taken, the technology or all of the above?
Thanks for comment/discussion


Don't leave the lens out of the equation. I used to get some great
shots from my ancient Argus C-3 "brick", but Argus were renowned back
then for their optics. Similarly my old Minolta X-700 got great, sharp
shots with a sweet little Tamron 70-210 zoom, while both the lenses I
have for my Rebel G - the kit 28-90 and the EF 75-300 - are painfully
soft when compared side-by-side with those old Minolta/Tamron shots.
Pics taken with the same 75-300 on my Digital Rebel are no better or
worse than with the Rebel G.
  #5  
Old May 20th 07, 09:23 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,uk.rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.misc,alt.photography,rec.photo.equipment.misc
Charles[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 695
Default Film vs. digital cameras


wrote in message
oups.com...
I went back and look at old photos in my attic and surprised to see
that some of photos that I took years ago using a cheap Nikon One
touch range finder camera were extremely sharp and good quality. I
used that camera for a number of years, outdoor photos in rain or
shine conditions, has some tree gooey sap all over at one time. It is
now resting and not used, but I think it is still working.
My question is whether the digital cameras made nowadays is better or
at least the same as the old cameras, in term of its quality and
performance. I do not use dark room anymore as it can end up expensive
(I used to in the old days), so photo qualities in those days mostly
were dependent on where I sent the film for printing in the lab. I
never realize looking of photos taken by my digital cameras until I
compare them against old regular cameras. Is it the camera, the
condition when the photo taken, the technology or all of the above?
Thanks for comment/discussion


Depends on the cameras. One must compare high-end to high end and so on.
Many feel that the best current DSLRs have surpassed 35 mm film cameras.
Google and you will find sites such as
http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html
http://www.clarkvision.com/index.html
and many others.


  #6  
Old May 20th 07, 10:22 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,uk.rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.misc,alt.photography,rec.photo.equipment.misc
Richard Polhill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 447
Default Film vs. digital cameras

wrote:
I went back and look at old photos in my attic and surprised to see
that some of photos that I took years ago using a cheap Nikon One
touch range finder camera were extremely sharp and good quality. I
used that camera for a number of years, outdoor photos in rain or
shine conditions, has some tree gooey sap all over at one time. It is
now resting and not used, but I think it is still working.
My question is whether the digital cameras made nowadays is better or
at least the same as the old cameras, in term of its quality and
performance. I do not use dark room anymore as it can end up expensive
(I used to in the old days), so photo qualities in those days mostly
were dependent on where I sent the film for printing in the lab. I
never realize looking of photos taken by my digital cameras until I
compare them against old regular cameras. Is it the camera, the
condition when the photo taken, the technology or all of the above?
Thanks for comment/discussion


If you mean build quality, then it's simply the way of the world: once
upon a time it was viable to make things out of metal, especially where
the workings are all mechanical: the solid build helps accuracy.

With the advent of electronic control, manufacturers could get away with
less solidly built bodies, and plastic moulding became the norm, being a
LOT cheaper.

Everything is shoddily made from flimsy plastic these days, at least at
the consumer end. At the pro end of the photography market things are
better, but nothing, except maybe a Leica, has that solid tough metal
feel of old cameras.

With regard to picture quality. Well I can't see that any real advances
have been made in glass quality or lens design, except to make them
lighter, smaller, cheaper and the proliferation of very wide range
zooms. Use a brand new prime lens rather than the kit zoom, and you'll
find a world of quality away, much like it was when your older kit was made.

So I think where modern kit falls down is that we all supposedly want a
6xkit zoom instead of a good prime or two. A 6x zoom is still going to
be thrashed on quality by a prime of any age and price.

  #10  
Old May 21st 07, 02:30 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,uk.rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.misc,alt.photography,rec.photo.equipment.misc
Robert Peirce
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 94
Default Film vs. digital cameras

In article .com,
wrote:

My question is whether the digital cameras made nowadays is better or
at least the same as the old cameras, in term of its quality and
performance. I do not use dark room anymore as it can end up expensive
(I used to in the old days), so photo qualities in those days mostly
were dependent on where I sent the film for printing in the lab.


I don't think digital is up to the range of 35mm film yet. However, I
much prefer digital over negative film for color work. I could never
quite get color to come out right from film, but digital seems to do it
with no problem. OTOH, B&W still seems to be better on film (although
digital is catching up fast) and 4x5 color slides are quite remarkable.
Digital would have a very long way to go to come close to 4x5 color
slides.

A related issue is what you can get in the print. My old rule-of-thumb
was not to go over 8x10 with 35mm film, although many did with good
results. With inkjet printers, the rule-of-thumb seems to be to go
around 300dpi, although many go less with good results. If you want an
8x10 at 300 dpi without upresing, you need 3000x2400, which is 7.2Mb.
However, I have produced some decent 12x16 prints from a 4Mb camera.
The point is you can probably do better color work on the print in
digital.

Possibly an even more important point is that color prints from negative
film seemed to fade before your eyes. Color inkjet prints from pigment
inks may last as long as silver B&W prints.

Film is relatively more expensive than digital. Some people don't print
digital at all and when they do they can choose one or two images out of
hundreds.

So, for everyday use I prefer digital. For critical color work I would
use 4x5 slides, which can be scanned and printed if desired.

--
Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac]
rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office]

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Turning film cameras into digital cameras [email protected] Digital Photography 106 May 8th 07 06:03 PM
Turning film cameras into digital cameras [email protected] Other Photographic Equipment 68 May 7th 07 10:38 PM
Digital Cameras,Cameras,Film,Online Developing,More Walmart General Equipment For Sale 0 December 17th 04 12:52 AM
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? Michael Weinstein, M.D. In The Darkroom 13 January 24th 04 10:51 PM
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras that use film? [email protected] Film & Labs 20 January 24th 04 10:51 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.