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 » General Photography » In The Darkroom
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 24th 04, 04:49 AM
Michael Weinstein, M.D.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 24th 04, 07:04 AM
John Horner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 24th 04, 08:22 AM
otzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 24th 04, 08:32 AM
Michael A. Covington
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 24th 04, 12:00 PM
brian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 24th 04, 12:02 PM
brian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 24th 04, 12:48 PM
BCampbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 24th 04, 02:09 PM
ktphotonics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film?

Define 'better'?

On 23/1/04 3:05 am, in article [email protected],
" 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  
Old January 24th 04, 03:42 PM
Michael A. Covington
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 24th 04, 03:43 PM
Michael A. Covington
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:03 AM.


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.