Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras that use film?

Reply
Thread Tools

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

 
 
brian
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-24-2004
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" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:f4267702bc0249d780649f23f2ad7f65@news.1usenet .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" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:UesQb.1952$(E-Mail Removed)...
> >
> > "Michael Weinstein, M.D." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:BC37556E.21232%(E-Mail Removed)...
> > > 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 <(E-Mail Removed)>
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >

> >
> >
> > ---
> > 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


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Michael Weinstein, M.D.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-29-2004
The film cameras keep getting better as the film gets better. My Pentax 6x7
is better today than it was in 1979 because the film is better. The OM2 is
better because the film is better. Both cameras started out with excellent
mechanics and excellent optics, and with new lenses the optics can even be
better. but it is the improved film that improves the pictures. Digital
cameras never get better. You have to keep buying new ones. Some day digital
will probably equal or excede film, but that day is not here yet. Still, I
wouldn't mind having the Kodak 14 with all the Nikon lenses. I just wouldn't
delude myself into believing that it will be just as good in 5 years as it
is today (relative to what's out there) while the OM2 and the Pentax ARE
just as good or better.
--
Michael Weinstein | "Never underestimate the power of stupid
Nashua, NH | people in large groups."

> From: "dooey" <(E-Mail Removed)>
> Organization: blueyonder (post doesn't reflect views of blueyonder)
> Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.fil m+labs
> Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 18:21:13 -0000
> Subject: Re: Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse
> film?
>
>
> "BCampbell" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:f4267702bc0249d780649f23f2ad7f65@news.1usenet .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.
>
>


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
gsum
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-29-2004
If you compare like with like i.e. ISO 100 35mm film with
digital, cameras such as the D100 produce better results than
film.
At the moment, MF certainly beats digital but only in
terms of resolution. Even MF cannot compete with
digital for colour accuracy and consistency of results.

As for the OM system (which I recently swapped for a
Fuji rangefinder), the cameras were unbeatable but my OM
lenses were not very good compared to Nikon lenses
as they were a bit soft - I had the 50mm and 35x70mm
lenses. The slight softness of the OM lenses probably
did not matter with traditional 'wet' photography as we
were not as critical of the results as we are now. Modern
scanners produce results that will expose any defects in
the lens system.

Graham


"Michael Weinstein, M.D." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:BC3DBDA4.21B82%(E-Mail Removed)...
> The film cameras keep getting better as the film gets better. My Pentax

6x7
> is better today than it was in 1979 because the film is better. The OM2 is
> better because the film is better. Both cameras started out with excellent
> mechanics and excellent optics, and with new lenses the optics can even be
> better. but it is the improved film that improves the pictures. Digital
> cameras never get better. You have to keep buying new ones. Some day

digital
> will probably equal or excede film, but that day is not here yet. Still, I
> wouldn't mind having the Kodak 14 with all the Nikon lenses. I just

wouldn't
> delude myself into believing that it will be just as good in 5 years as it
> is today (relative to what's out there) while the OM2 and the Pentax ARE
> just as good or better.
> --
> Michael Weinstein | "Never underestimate the power of stupid
> Nashua, NH | people in large groups."
>




 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
problem in running a basic code in python 3.3.0 that includes HTML file Satabdi Mukherjee Python 1 04-04-2013 07:48 PM
Cameras--Cameras--Cameras wagwheel Digital Photography 4 04-01-2007 01:12 PM
New crappy cameras Uhg! BG250 Digital Photography 6 09-24-2004 11:21 AM
People with both pocket digital cameras & bigger digital cameras zxcvar Digital Photography 12 01-04-2004 02:38 AM
Which Digital Cameras Use CMOS Sensors Instead of CCD's? N.E.1. Digital Photography 20 09-23-2003 12:20 PM



Advertisments