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
|
|||
|
|||
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film?
They were selling the new Kodak 14 megapixel camera (with Nikon lenses) at
Ritz and I asked them how it compared in output to my venerable Olympus OM2. The OM2, they said, beats it up. It will take a while for digital to equal 35mm and it will take a very long while for it to equal medium format. Someday it probably will. But it isn't someday yet, and all the digital cameras you can buy today will be useless museum pieces in a few years when compared with what is coming down the road. -- Michael Weinstein | "Never underestimate the power of stupid Nashua, NH | people in large groups." From: Newsman Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.fil m+labs Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 21:05:40 GMT Subject: Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras that use film? If people like both of them why don't manufacturers make a camera that uses both technologies like those dual DVD/VHS players? That's simple; The camera would be far too expensive, too cumbersome and most people would never use the film feature. Only the professional photog would use the digital feature for test shooting. Most of the medium format cameras have removable backs and can take a digital back for straight shooting or test shooting. __________________________________________________ ____________________ IMHO Film produces the most cost effective HIGH RES Image compared to the cost of an expensive 5, 6 or higher MegaPixal Camera. If you are a professional Photog that justifies the cost and can produce a considerable profit, then High Res Digital cameras are the tools that offer you another method of producing Images. As for Picture quality is concerned, any Digital system that works at 6 MegaPixal or Higher and choosing the correct lens produce amazing Images. Pro Digital - Can use the memory indefinitely as you unload images to PC's Digital - No processing costs if all work remains Digital Film - No waiting for Memory to store image. Shooting models who change position for example. Slide & Negative Film - Can be digitally scanned and filled away for future reference. Film - Can produce much larger Images more cost effectively than does Digital Digital - Is good for Still Life shooting, Scenic and static subjects. Film - is Just as good; In some cases better than Digital in color Saturation. Cons Film Damages easily Film - Added cost for processing. Film - Can be damaged during processing. Film - Scratches easily. Digital - At the present time, Professional Digital Cams are cost prohibitive. Hopefully competition among the major camera manufacturer's will eventually bring down the cost. Though I doubt it. e.g. 5 & 6 Megapixal Cams. $900 - $1900 and the Kodak 15 MegaPixal costs $10,000.00 or more !!!! Like all other product limitations, 5 & 6 Megapixal Digital Cams do not produce images larger than 11 x 14 inches with High Picture quality. Film on the other hand still produce images at 11 x 14 and higher. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film?
They were selling the new Kodak 14 megapixel camera (with Nikon lenses) at
Ritz and I asked them how it compared in output to my venerable Olympus OM2. The OM2, they said, beats it up. It will take a while for digital to equal 35mm and it will take a very long while for it to equal medium format. Someday it probably will. But it isn't someday yet, and all the digital cameras you can buy today will be useless museum pieces in a few years when compared with what is coming down the road. Hmmm, you trust the judgment of the counter person at Ritz ??????? John |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film?
Hmmm, you trust the judgment of the counter person at Ritz ??????? But he's probably right! Look at recent history. Never the less the top end stuff like Sinar, Leaf et al takes a bit of beating, problems aside. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film?
"John Horner" wrote in message ... They were selling the new Kodak 14 megapixel camera (with Nikon lenses) at Ritz and I asked them how it compared in output to my venerable Olympus OM2. The OM2, they said, beats it up. It will take a while for digital to equal 35mm and it will take a very long while for it to equal medium format. Someday it probably will. But it isn't someday yet, and all the digital cameras you can buy today will be useless museum pieces in a few years when compared with what is coming down the road. Hmmm, you trust the judgment of the counter person at Ritz ??????? An OM-2 is an awfully good camera. An OM-2S, even better... But it depends on what you want. If you need digital images, a digital camera is better. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film?
"Michael Weinstein, M.D." wrote in message ... They were selling the new Kodak 14 megapixel camera (with Nikon lenses) at Ritz and I asked them how it compared in output to my venerable Olympus OM2. The OM2, they said, beats it up. It will take a while for digital to equal 35mm and it will take a very long while for it to equal medium format. Someday it probably will. But it isn't someday yet, and all the digital cameras you can buy today will be useless museum pieces in a few years when compared with what is coming down the road. -- Never mind an OM2, even a centon DF300, at a cost of £70 for the body will produce better prints than the Kodak,The other main point you left out there is the cost of that 14 megapixel camera, a price tag of somewhere in the region of £4000 is being thrown about, hardly an affordable way for joe bloggs to take pics , is it, then in a few years 14megapixels will be entry level and you will have to shell out another £4000 for the next big megapixel camera, of course if you want cheap digital imaging, you could alway buy something with FOVEON X3 technology, LOL. Brian.......................... Never underestimate the power of large groups on stupid people, lol Michael Weinstein | "Never underestimate the power of stupid Nashua, NH | people in large groups." From: Newsman Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.fil m+labs Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 21:05:40 GMT Subject: Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras that use film? If people like both of them why don't manufacturers make a camera that uses both technologies like those dual DVD/VHS players? That's simple; The camera would be far too expensive, too cumbersome and most people would never use the film feature. Only the professional photog would use the digital feature for test shooting. Most of the medium format cameras have removable backs and can take a digital back for straight shooting or test shooting. __________________________________________________ ____________________ IMHO Film produces the most cost effective HIGH RES Image compared to the cost of an expensive 5, 6 or higher MegaPixal Camera. If you are a professional Photog that justifies the cost and can produce a considerable profit, then High Res Digital cameras are the tools that offer you another method of producing Images. As for Picture quality is concerned, any Digital system that works at 6 MegaPixal or Higher and choosing the correct lens produce amazing Images. Pro Digital - Can use the memory indefinitely as you unload images to PC's Digital - No processing costs if all work remains Digital Film - No waiting for Memory to store image. Shooting models who change position for example. Slide & Negative Film - Can be digitally scanned and filled away for future reference. Film - Can produce much larger Images more cost effectively than does Digital Digital - Is good for Still Life shooting, Scenic and static subjects. Film - is Just as good; In some cases better than Digital in color Saturation. Cons Film Damages easily Film - Added cost for processing. Film - Can be damaged during processing. Film - Scratches easily. Digital - At the present time, Professional Digital Cams are cost prohibitive. Hopefully competition among the major camera manufacturer's will eventually bring down the cost. Though I doubt it. e.g. 5 & 6 Megapixal Cams. $900 - $1900 and the Kodak 15 MegaPixal costs $10,000.00 or more !!!! Like all other product limitations, 5 & 6 Megapixal Digital Cams do not produce images larger than 11 x 14 inches with High Picture quality. Film on the other hand still produce images at 11 x 14 and higher. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 19/01/2004 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film?
"Michael A. Covington" wrote in message ... "John Horner" wrote in message ... They were selling the new Kodak 14 megapixel camera (with Nikon lenses) at Ritz and I asked them how it compared in output to my venerable Olympus OM2. The OM2, they said, beats it up. It will take a while for digital to equal 35mm and it will take a very long while for it to equal medium format. Someday it probably will. But it isn't someday yet, and all the digital cameras you can buy today will be useless museum pieces in a few years when compared with what is coming down the road. Hmmm, you trust the judgment of the counter person at Ritz ??????? An OM-2 is an awfully good camera. An OM-2S, even better... But it depends on what you want. If you need digital images, a digital camera is better. EXACTLY!!!, WELL SAID THAT MAN. Brian..................... --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 19/01/2004 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film?
The other main point you left out there
is the cost of that 14 megapixel camera, a price tag of somewhere in the region of £4000 is being thrown about, hardly an affordable way for joe bloggs to take pics , is it, then in a few years 14megapixels will be entry level and you will have to shell out another £4000 for the next big megapixel camera, Why will you have to shell out another 4000 for the next big megapixel camera? When I bought my D100 they didn't tell me I'd have to get rid of it when Nikon comes out with another bigger mp camera. Was that language buried in the fine print somewhere and I just missed it? I sure hope not, I was planning to keep my D100 as long as it suited my needs just as I kept my Nikon N90S even after Nikon came out with the F100 and F5. But if I'm missing something here, and there is a law somewhere that says that buying one digital camera obligates me to replace it every time a bigger mp camera comes on the market, please let me know because I wasn't told anything like that by the retailer or by Nikon. "brian" wrote in message ... "Michael Weinstein, M.D." wrote in message ... They were selling the new Kodak 14 megapixel camera (with Nikon lenses) at Ritz and I asked them how it compared in output to my venerable Olympus OM2. The OM2, they said, beats it up. It will take a while for digital to equal 35mm and it will take a very long while for it to equal medium format. Someday it probably will. But it isn't someday yet, and all the digital cameras you can buy today will be useless museum pieces in a few years when compared with what is coming down the road. -- Never mind an OM2, even a centon DF300, at a cost of £70 for the body will produce better prints than the Kodak,The other main point you left out there is the cost of that 14 megapixel camera, a price tag of somewhere in the region of £4000 is being thrown about, hardly an affordable way for joe bloggs to take pics , is it, then in a few years 14megapixels will be entry level and you will have to shell out another £4000 for the next big megapixel camera, of course if you want cheap digital imaging, you could alway buy something with FOVEON X3 technology, LOL. Brian.......................... Never underestimate the power of large groups on stupid people, lol Michael Weinstein | "Never underestimate the power of stupid Nashua, NH | people in large groups." From: Newsman Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.fil m+labs Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 21:05:40 GMT Subject: Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras that use film? If people like both of them why don't manufacturers make a camera that uses both technologies like those dual DVD/VHS players? That's simple; The camera would be far too expensive, too cumbersome and most people would never use the film feature. Only the professional photog would use the digital feature for test shooting. Most of the medium format cameras have removable backs and can take a digital back for straight shooting or test shooting. __________________________________________________ ____________________ IMHO Film produces the most cost effective HIGH RES Image compared to the cost of an expensive 5, 6 or higher MegaPixal Camera. If you are a professional Photog that justifies the cost and can produce a considerable profit, then High Res Digital cameras are the tools that offer you another method of producing Images. As for Picture quality is concerned, any Digital system that works at 6 MegaPixal or Higher and choosing the correct lens produce amazing Images. Pro Digital - Can use the memory indefinitely as you unload images to PC's Digital - No processing costs if all work remains Digital Film - No waiting for Memory to store image. Shooting models who change position for example. Slide & Negative Film - Can be digitally scanned and filled away for future reference. Film - Can produce much larger Images more cost effectively than does Digital Digital - Is good for Still Life shooting, Scenic and static subjects. Film - is Just as good; In some cases better than Digital in color Saturation. Cons Film Damages easily Film - Added cost for processing. Film - Can be damaged during processing. Film - Scratches easily. Digital - At the present time, Professional Digital Cams are cost prohibitive. Hopefully competition among the major camera manufacturer's will eventually bring down the cost. Though I doubt it. e.g. 5 & 6 Megapixal Cams. $900 - $1900 and the Kodak 15 MegaPixal costs $10,000.00 or more !!!! Like all other product limitations, 5 & 6 Megapixal Digital Cams do not produce images larger than 11 x 14 inches with High Picture quality. Film on the other hand still produce images at 11 x 14 and higher. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 19/01/2004 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film?
Define 'better'?
On 23/1/04 3:05 am, in article 40104918.9757.6ABAB2D@localhost, " wrote: If people like both of them why don't manufacturers make a camera that uses both technologies like those dual DVD/VHS players? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film?
"brian" wrote in message ... Never mind an OM2, even a centon DF300, at a cost of £70 for the body will produce better prints than the Kodak,The other main point you left out there is the cost of that 14 megapixel camera, a price tag of somewhere in the region of £4000 is being thrown about, hardly an affordable way for joe bloggs to take pics , is it, then in a few years 14megapixels will be entry level and you will have to shell out another £4000 for the next big megapixel camera, of course if you want cheap digital imaging, you could alway buy something with FOVEON X3 technology, LOL. Exactly -- there's the cost factor. 2MP and 3MP digital cameras have replaced casual snapshots -- the pictures that people would take inexpertly with an Instamatic or whatever. Digital is just fine for that purpose. Digital cameras are also taking over the market for pictures for publication (Web or print), where the image needs to be digitized for production purposes anyhow, and need not be terribly big. In that situation, people are willing to spend a great deal more on a digital camera because of the speed and the lack of film and processing costs. But film is still the cheapest path to the highest-quality images. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film?
"BCampbell" wrote in message .com... Why will you have to shell out another 4000 for the next big megapixel camera? When I bought my D100 they didn't tell me I'd have to get rid of it when Nikon comes out with another bigger mp camera. Was that language buried in the fine print somewhere and I just missed it? I sure hope not, I was planning to keep my D100 as long as it suited my needs... Good point. I think all of the cameras I use, film and digital, are obsolete! I don't think even one of them is in current production. And I have a lot of cameras... the most-used are Coolpix 990, Nikon F3, Nikon N70, Olympus OM-1... They still work! |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|