Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Digital Photography (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f37-digital-photography.html)
-   -   Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras that use film? (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t251365-which-is-better-digital-cameras-or-older-crappy-cameras-that-use-film.html)

Steven C \(Doktersteve\) 01-23-2004 03:21 AM

Re: Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras that use film?
 

<the_fovemeister@kebi.com> wrote in message
news:40104918.9757.6ABAB2D@localhost...
> If people like both of them why don't manufacturers make a camera that

uses both
> technologies like those dual DVD/VHS players?
>


WTF? Crappy film cameras?
I don't know what you are doing, trolling like that.

I will still answer your question though:

Leica makes a camera that is both a DSLR and a 35mm SLR.
It is however, too expensive, and uses Leica Glass, which is entirely out of
the realm of possibility for most people.
Leica glass is also becoming out dated, with lenses from canon and Nikon
becoming ever more advanced.



Jerome H. Gitomer 01-23-2004 05:22 AM

Re: Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film?
 
the_fovemeister@kebi.com wrote:
> If people like both of them why don't manufacturers make a camera that uses both
> technologies like those dual DVD/VHS players?
>

Ah, but they do. Have a look at the Polaroid I-Zone.

Jerry


Michael A. Covington 01-23-2004 05:28 AM

Re: Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras that use film?
 

<the_fovemeister@kebi.com> wrote in message
news:40104918.9757.6ABAB2D@localhost...
> If people like both of them why don't manufacturers make a camera that

uses both
> technologies like those dual DVD/VHS players?


Not easy to do. Affordable low-cost digital sensors are a lot smaller than
film and need a different kind of lens in order to work well.

For a long time Kodak has been trying to sell people on the idea of taking
pictures on film and having them digitized at the processing lab.



Hils 01-23-2004 06:06 AM

Re: Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras that use film?
 
Michael A. Covington writes

>> If people like both of them why don't manufacturers make a camera that

>uses both
>> technologies like those dual DVD/VHS players?

>
>Not easy to do. Affordable low-cost digital sensors are a lot smaller than
>film and need a different kind of lens in order to work well.


Rumors of a Nikon F6 with film and digital backs won't go away, though
about the only thing one can predict about it is that if it ever appears
it won't be cheap!

--
Hil

The Wogster 01-23-2004 05:16 PM

Re: Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film?
 
the_fovemeister@kebi.com wrote:
> If people like both of them why don't manufacturers make a camera that uses both
> technologies like those dual DVD/VHS players?
>

There are, some film cameras have removable backs, where the film back
can be replaced by a digital back, in other cases, sometimes it works
equally well to use film initially, and then scan to digital.




Newsman 01-23-2004 09:05 PM

Re: Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse 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.




Michael Weinstein, M.D. 01-24-2004 03:49 AM

Re: 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 <newsman@abc.net>
> Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.fil m+labs
> Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 21:05:40 GMT
> Subject: Re: 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.
>
>
>



John Horner 01-24-2004 06:04 AM

Re: 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



otzi 01-24-2004 07:22 AM

Re: 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.



Michael A. Covington 01-24-2004 07:32 AM

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

"John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10142nrad0s6qb8@corp.supernews.com...
> > 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.




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:26 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.