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

Any advantages of conventional over digital?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 7th 03, 08:46 AM
Knack
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Any advantages of conventional over digital?

I found a really nice Olympus Accura Zoom 105 point and shoot 35mm film
camera at a web store. It has a zoom lens range of 38-105mm (3x), but the
reasons for instead buying a digital camera seem compelling enough.

What are the advantages, if any, of a film camera over a digital camera when
comparing two cameras of the same zoom range?


  #2  
Old October 7th 03, 08:02 PM
Ken Hart
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Any advantages of conventional over digital?


"Knack" wrote in message
k.net...
I found a really nice Olympus Accura Zoom 105 point and shoot 35mm film
camera at a web store. It has a zoom lens range of 38-105mm (3x), but the
reasons for instead buying a digital camera seem compelling enough.

What are the advantages, if any, of a film camera over a digital camera

when
comparing two cameras of the same zoom range?



Try this link: www.williamsphotographic.com/digital . It's a (IMHO) overview
of digital vs film.

Ken


  #3  
Old October 8th 03, 03:28 AM
zeitgeist
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Any advantages of conventional over digital?


cost to buy in is lower, film shooters shoot much less, there's the old
cliche about folks who have two christmases on one roll. films cameras
have a more responsive shutter, much less lag when you press. if you have
costco or wallmart you can get prints for less than a dime each, have images
scanned to a disk for you.

I found a really nice Olympus Accura Zoom 105 point and shoot 35mm film
camera at a web store. It has a zoom lens range of 38-105mm (3x), but the
reasons for instead buying a digital camera seem compelling enough.

What are the advantages, if any, of a film camera over a digital camera

when
comparing two cameras of the same zoom range?




  #4  
Old October 9th 03, 04:48 AM
Francis A. Miniter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Any advantages of conventional over digital?

Hi Knack,

Unless you are ready to spend substantially more for a digital camera
than a film camera, you will get a better quality image from the film
than from the digital taking of the scene. For those who never get more
than 4x6 prints, this may not be relevant. For those who care about the
quality of the final print and may make enlargements, this is very
relevant. For those who enter images in juried competitions, digital
still does not come close.


If, as some of us, you use medium format film (2 1/4 inches by 2 1/4
inches or more) or large format cameras (4 inch x 5 inch negatives or
even 5x7 or 8x10 or 11x14), there is no comparison whatsoever, and no
competition even unless you want to spend $20,000 on a digital
Hasselblad back for your Hasselblad system.


Archivability is better with film. Anyone anytime can make a print from
a negative. As digital formats change and the digital media on which
they are stored change, data can become irretrievable. It was not all
that long ago that people used 8 inch floppy disks. If you were given
one now and told to recover the data, could you? Could you, if it were
a 5 1/4 inch disk? If you had the hardware, would you have the right
software? Does anyone remember Leading Edge Word Processing program?


Digital cameras only work when the batteries are working. There are
those of us who prefer old fully manual cameras with no electronics,
because they never fail. They do not depend on batteries to function.
Many of my cameras are 50 years old. Will your digital camera still
work in 50 years?


Peripheral equipment to try to achieve "photographic" quality prints
from digital data is expensive. The deposition of ink jet dots still is
not as fine as a print from film image.


Many film cameras allow special effects such as double imaging. I am
not aware of this capability with digital cameras.


If you are intending to take many, many shots in the field, film is
easier and cheaper to handle than having multiple, expensive additional
memory chips. I have taken a couple hundred shots in a day when touring.


Francis A. Miniter




Knack wrote:

I found a really nice Olympus Accura Zoom 105 point and shoot 35mm film
camera at a web store. It has a zoom lens range of 38-105mm (3x), but the
reasons for instead buying a digital camera seem compelling enough.

What are the advantages, if any, of a film camera over a digital camera when
comparing two cameras of the same zoom range?





  #5  
Old October 9th 03, 05:14 PM
Michael Scarpitti
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Any advantages of conventional over digital?

"Francis A. Miniter" wrote in message ...
Hi Knack,

Unless you are ready to spend substantially more for a digital camera
than a film camera, you will get a better quality image from the film
than from the digital taking of the scene.


It depends on the light levels, from what I've seen of sports photos
under dim light, I'd say digital looks pretty good. Otherwise, I'd
agree with you.

For those who never get more
than 4x6 prints, this may not be relevant. For those who care about the
quality of the final print and may make enlargements, this is very
relevant. For those who enter images in juried competitions, digital
still does not come close.


If, as some of us, you use medium format film (2 1/4 inches by 2 1/4
inches or more) or large format cameras (4 inch x 5 inch negatives or
even 5x7 or 8x10 or 11x14), there is no comparison whatsoever, and no
competition even unless you want to spend $20,000 on a digital
Hasselblad back for your Hasselblad system.


Archivability is better with film. Anyone anytime can make a print from
a negative. As digital formats change and the digital media on which
they are stored change, data can become irretrievable. It was not all
that long ago that people used 8 inch floppy disks. If you were given
one now and told to recover the data, could you? Could you, if it were
a 5 1/4 inch disk? If you had the hardware, would you have the right
software? Does anyone remember Leading Edge Word Processing program?


Digital cameras only work when the batteries are working. There are
those of us who prefer old fully manual cameras with no electronics,
because they never fail. They do not depend on batteries to function.
Many of my cameras are 50 years old. Will your digital camera still
work in 50 years?


Peripheral equipment to try to achieve "photographic" quality prints
from digital data is expensive. The deposition of ink jet dots still is
not as fine as a print from film image.


Many film cameras allow special effects such as double imaging. I am
not aware of this capability with digital cameras.


If you are intending to take many, many shots in the field, film is
easier and cheaper to handle than having multiple, expensive additional
memory chips. I have taken a couple hundred shots in a day when touring.


Francis A. Miniter




Knack wrote:

I found a really nice Olympus Accura Zoom 105 point and shoot 35mm film
camera at a web store. It has a zoom lens range of 38-105mm (3x), but the
reasons for instead buying a digital camera seem compelling enough.

What are the advantages, if any, of a film camera over a digital camera when
comparing two cameras of the same zoom range?




  #6  
Old October 10th 03, 04:01 AM
Francis A. Miniter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Any advantages of conventional over digital?

A footnote. Control. With a manual film camera, you don't even have
to take the image in focus, if you so not wish to do so. You can also
use a slow shutter speed to blur motion. Certainly auto everything
(film or digital) does not offer this level of artistic control. I
cannot say how well digital cameras allow you to blur focus or blur
speed. But manual controls put the decision in the hands of the
photographer, not the computer.


Francis A. Miniter


Francis A. Miniter wrote:

Hi Knack,

Unless you are ready to spend substantially more for a digital camera
than a film camera, you will get a better quality image from the film
than from the digital taking of the scene. For those who never get
more than 4x6 prints, this may not be relevant. For those who care
about the quality of the final print and may make enlargements, this
is very relevant. For those who enter images in juried competitions,
digital still does not come close.

If, as some of us, you use medium format film (2 1/4 inches by 2 1/4
inches or more) or large format cameras (4 inch x 5 inch negatives or
even 5x7 or 8x10 or 11x14), there is no comparison whatsoever, and no
competition even unless you want to spend $20,000 on a digital
Hasselblad back for your Hasselblad system.

Archivability is better with film. Anyone anytime can make a print
from a negative. As digital formats change and the digital media on
which they are stored change, data can become irretrievable. It was
not all that long ago that people used 8 inch floppy disks. If you
were given one now and told to recover the data, could you? Could
you, if it were a 5 1/4 inch disk? If you had the hardware, would you
have the right software? Does anyone remember Leading Edge Word
Processing program?


Digital cameras only work when the batteries are working. There are
those of us who prefer old fully manual cameras with no electronics,
because they never fail. They do not depend on batteries to
function. Many of my cameras are 50 years old. Will your digital
camera still work in 50 years?


Peripheral equipment to try to achieve "photographic" quality prints
from digital data is expensive. The deposition of ink jet dots still
is not as fine as a print from film image.

Many film cameras allow special effects such as double imaging. I am
not aware of this capability with digital cameras.

If you are intending to take many, many shots in the field, film is
easier and cheaper to handle than having multiple, expensive
additional memory chips. I have taken a couple hundred shots in a day
when touring.

Francis A. Miniter




Knack wrote:

I found a really nice Olympus Accura Zoom 105 point and shoot 35mm film
camera at a web store. It has a zoom lens range of 38-105mm (3x), but
the
reasons for instead buying a digital camera seem compelling enough.

What are the advantages, if any, of a film camera over a digital
camera when
comparing two cameras of the same zoom range?






  #7  
Old October 10th 03, 08:19 AM
Rob Wild
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Any advantages of conventional over digital?



"Francis A. Miniter" wrote:

A footnote. Control. With a manual film camera, you don't even have
to take the image in focus, if you so not wish to do so. You can also
use a slow shutter speed to blur motion. Certainly auto everything
(film or digital) does not offer this level of artistic control. I
cannot say how well digital cameras allow you to blur focus or blur
speed. But manual controls put the decision in the hands of the
photographer, not the computer.

Francis A. Miniter


A small rebuttal to your footnote:

Most "auto-everything" slr cameras usually have a fully manual mode, and
additionally, many auto-focus lenses usually have a manual focus option
included. Hence, it is possible to be very artisic and creative (keeping
in context with your PoV, even though you can still be creative in the
auto-everything modes I believe) in this manual mode.

cheers

Rob
  #8  
Old October 10th 03, 06:21 PM
Ken Hart
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Any advantages of conventional over digital?


"Rob Wild" wrote in message
...


"Francis A. Miniter" wrote:

A footnote. Control. With a manual film camera, you don't even have
to take the image in focus, if you so not wish to do so. You can also
use a slow shutter speed to blur motion. Certainly auto everything
(film or digital) does not offer this level of artistic control. I
cannot say how well digital cameras allow you to blur focus or blur
speed. But manual controls put the decision in the hands of the
photographer, not the computer.

Francis A. Miniter


A small rebuttal to your footnote:

Most "auto-everything" slr cameras usually have a fully manual mode, and
additionally, many auto-focus lenses usually have a manual focus option
included. Hence, it is possible to be very artisic and creative (keeping
in context with your PoV, even though you can still be creative in the
auto-everything modes I believe) in this manual mode.

cheers

Rob


I agree with both gentlemen regarding manual mode allowing more "artistic"
(or lack thereof!) control. My followup question is how many digital cameras
have manual modes, and how well do they work? If the exposure is off by a
stop or two (by accident or neccessity), how will the digital image compare
to the negative image?

Thanks
Ken


  #9  
Old October 10th 03, 10:30 PM
Nighthawk
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Any advantages of conventional over digital?

Multiple Exposures

Knack wrote:

I found a really nice Olympus Accura Zoom 105 point and shoot 35mm film
camera at a web store. It has a zoom lens range of 38-105mm (3x), but the
reasons for instead buying a digital camera seem compelling enough.

What are the advantages, if any, of a film camera over a digital camera when
comparing two cameras of the same zoom range?



  #10  
Old October 12th 03, 04:09 PM
Bob Sull
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Any advantages of conventional over digital?

Knack wrote:

I found a really nice Olympus Accura Zoom 105 point and shoot 35mm film
camera at a web store. It has a zoom lens range of 38-105mm (3x), but the
reasons for instead buying a digital camera seem compelling enough.

What are the advantages, if any, of a film camera over a digital camera when
comparing two cameras of the same zoom range?


You don't need a computer. You don't need a photo quality printer. (Ink
and paper are expensive) You don't need special software, You don't
have to spend time in front of the computer looking at your shots.
(Drop the film off and pick it up the next day or when you are done
shopping) You don't have to print, with your computer and printer and
software and your time, the shots you want to share with friends. The
faster the printer, the more expensive it is.

OTOH, untill you get familiar with your film camera and the film you
decide to use, you are not always sure that you got what you wanted on
film till after it is processed. If you are in "The Valley of Fire
State PArk" in Nevada and home is in Rhode Island, going back to redo
the shot isn't usually an option. Then too, shots you don't want, get
thrown away but you pay for them. With digital you just dump them in
the bit bucket. The film is not reusable and the digital media is.

Then again, as someone said on one of the fora I subscribe to, "I am
having trouble getting data off of a 5.25" diskette, nobody has a 5.25"
diskette drive anymore. Oh, by the way, I printed a sixty year old
negative last night....."

 




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
Sigma advantages over other camera manufacturers Giorgio Preddio In The Darkroom 23 June 29th 04 12:37 AM
Digital Imaging vs. (Digital and Film) Photography Bob Monaghan Medium Format Photography Equipment 9 June 19th 04 05:48 PM
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 10:51 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.