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
  #11  
Old January 24th 04, 06:21 PM
dooey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film?


"BCampbell" wrote in message
.com...
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.


You don't have to get rid of your D100 but you will need to spend something
like 4000 if you want a top of the range camera. In the world of digital
photography, this means a "big megapixel camera"!

--
Dooey.


  #12  
Old January 24th 04, 06:39 PM
Paul H.
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.


When you say, "I asked them", does the "them" refer to the saucer people who
occasionally abduct you and put microscopic tracking devices in your head?
Just curious.



  #13  
Old January 24th 04, 08:27 PM
Tom Monego
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film?

In article ,
says...

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."



It probably will beat it up, at full size 36x24mm the pure 35mm shot has more
potential, but big enlargements off the Kodak 14n will appear sharper. 8x10s
about the same, 11x14 will start to favor the Kodak. A way to get closer would
be to scan the 35mm with a dedicated slide scannerthen quality will equal out.
But if you even have standard optical prints made from 35mm High end digital
will be a superior quality print. Should you go out and spend 5 or 6 grand on a
14n and lenses, that is up to you. BTW there is a $1000 instant rebate running
on 14n's at the momment.
The 14n has some downsides, high noise levels at long exposure and at high
exposure indecies. There are many pros using them in controlled conditions. It
is kind of a camera that folks love to hate.

Tom

  #14  
Old January 24th 04, 09:51 PM
brian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film?

Tell you what, in 2 years time, post back here and let us know how your
getting on with your Nikon D100.
You think they'd sell many if it said, "by the way, in 2 years time this
camera and its internal workings will be obsolete and if it goes arse up you
have no chance of having it repaired for less than twice the camera's value"

The N90S and the F100 and F5 are 35mm SLR film camera's, all 35mm SLR film
camera's use the same format, and the same basic principal and operation,
the only differences are in the electronics which as we know are really just
sales gimmicks on most SLR's, its the lens that dictates how sharp and
detailed the image will be, if the internal meter breaks down , and can't be
fixed a handheld meter will do the job, if the internal meter on a digital
breaks , its knackered, because the digital imaging sensors rely on that
meter, if the CMOS sensor breaks, it will cost most of the original price of
the camera to have it replaced, its battery reliant and eats batteries
faster than Duracell can make them, a 50 year old Manual SLR will produce
the same quality images as a brand new one of today.
image quality of digitals, changes almost week to week, its all about sales,
Look at your computer, to keep up with current technology it has to be
upgraded about every 6 months, 1 year tops, this is so the computer industry
keeps making money, its the same with digital , and film camera's, these
companies are not in it to make you a camera.computer that will last you a
hundred years, they want you to buy! buy! buy!, so they introduce new
technology as often as they, like, I would guess that the next major hike in
digital imaging will come out around Xmas 2004.


Brian.......................







"BCampbell" wrote in message
.com...
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






---
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


 




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 11:16 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.