Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Digital vs. Film

Reply
Thread Tools

Digital vs. Film

 
 
Rebecca Ore
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-01-2004
In article <ceinh4$t55$(E-Mail Removed)>,
"Tonka" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> "Ryan Morin" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
> > I am looking to purchase a new camera and need some advice as to
> > whether I should go digital or film.
> >
> > I am mostly going to be using it for snapping pics while out camping,
> > canoeing, climbing etc. Typically I take more pics of scenery than
> > anything else.



For just snap shots, off tripod, and displaying them on line, go digital.

For 16 by 20 enlargements, go medium format or larger. You're probably
not going to want to have a medium format camera as your only camera,
though. Digital is just way easier to run.

There are a lot of reasonably good snapshot equivalent digital cameras
out there for between $300 and $450. You don't have to replace the
camera every three years, and one of the more rugged ones (metal shelled
Canons come to mind) can stand a lot of bumps.
> >
> > I am looking at getting something that will be with me for many years
> > to come. If anyone has some opinions on this please let me know.
> > Strengths and weaknesses etc of both would be really appreciated.


Digital is more convenient and cheaper to run; medium format or larger
gives more detail in the photographs if you want enlargements for the
wall.

Ziplock bags are cheap protection against weather, regardless of whether
you've got a Tojo 4x5 in the pack or a digital. The further trick of
cutting a hole in the bag to stick the lens through and rubberbanding
the bag around the lens might be a bit more difficult or impossible with
a digital zoom lens. I wouldn't worry about lack of waterproofing --
most medium formats and large formats aren't weatherproof either.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-01-2004
"SleeperMan" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> Ryan Morin typed:
>
>> I am looking to purchase a new camera and need some advice as to
>> whether I should go digital or film.
>>
>> I am mostly going to be using it for snapping pics while out camping,
>> canoeing, climbing etc. Typically I take more pics of scenery than
>> anything else.
>>
>> I am looking at getting something that will be with me for many years
>> to come. If anyone has some opinions on this please let me know.
>> Strengths and weaknesses etc of both would be really appreciated.
>>
>> RPM

>
> I look this way: if you have film camera, you have 24 or 36 shots (well, you
> can have more films with you...) and you think before each and every shot
> you make - maybe it's not worthed... also you can't really tell how that
> shot looks, if it's good, too dark, too blurry etc...
> With digital you have (normally) several 100 shots available, you don't
> really think too much before you shoot, you just press the shutter. You can
> see, how that shot looks, and if it's bad, you delete it and take another
> one. at the end, with film camera you end up with some 36 shots, of which
> about 10-15 are good, and with digital with some 300 shots - of which 50 or
> 100 are good. But bear in mind that for good digital you must buy a bit more
> costly one, look for good zoom (analog, forget digital one), and possibly
> some manual settings.


What a bizarre view. Personally, I've carried as much as a couple
hundred *rolls* of film with me. And if I'm shooting in RAW mode, I
get just 19 shots on a compact flash card (bigger cards would solve
that, but would break my current solution for off-loading cards in the
field).

I *do* find that digital improves my photography some; it lets me keep
trying for the difficult shots, rather than getting discouraged by the
expense. And it lets me know what's working and what doesn't work.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <(E-Mail Removed)>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-01-2004
"John Appleby" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> "Ryan Morin" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
>> I am looking to purchase a new camera and need some advice as to
>> whether I should go digital or film.
>>
>> I am mostly going to be using it for snapping pics while out
>> camping, canoeing, climbing etc. Typically I take more pics of
>> scenery than anything else.
>>
>> I am looking at getting something that will be with me for many
>> years to come. If anyone has some opinions on this please let me
>> know. Strengths and weaknesses etc of both would be really
>> appreciated.

>
> I'm going to throw a spanner in the works here. There are a few
> things that you might want to take into consideration:
>
> 1) Cost. Digital is clearly masses cheaper for the amateurs amongst
> us, long term. Do the maths on film and processing costs and you
> will make your money back. But a digital camera of a given quality
> is 2-5x more expensive than its film friend. Compare N80 to D100 for
> example.


It's interesting that you label this "for the amateurs".
Professionals benefit *more* from eliminating the film and lab costs,
since they both shoot more film, and generally use more expensive
labs. It also eliminates scanning costs -- essentially all
professional work on film is scanned before its final use these days.

> 2) Durability. It is very questionable as to whether there are any
> sensibly priced digital cameras which are really durable to the
> elements. Most suffer from sensor dirt which needs an AC adapter to
> clean off; even at (or perhaps especially at) the $1000-2000 range
> you will get something which is very averse to a few spots of water
> or a dusty environment. I also doubt that a digital camera will last
> you more than 2-3 years before it requires at least a major
> service. I don't know the statistics for this though, so take it
> with a pinch of salt.


Haven't had to do anything to my Epson 850Z from Feb. 2000 yet. My
Fuji S2 is from December 2002, only 1.5 years so far, but no
service-required problems. I have had to learn to clean the sensor,
but my package came with the AC adapter needed for that.

> 3) Number of pictures you can take. With a digital camera you need
> to spend out on cards, on a film camera you need to spend out on
> film. Either way if you have the budget, you can take an almost
> unlimited number of shots. Film, once it is in its protective case,
> can obviously be subjected to pretty harsh elements. Most CF cases
> aren't even vaguely waterproof.


Film is heat-sensitive and moisture-sensitive. I've heard people
reporting CF cards surviving a trip through the washing machine, but
haven't tried it myself .

For long trips away from civilization the battery issue is significant
(but so is film storage, especially in the tropics).

> Given where you are talking about using it, you might want to
> consider whether you can keep it moisture and dust free. If you
> can't, you might want to consider going with a film camera. If
> you're not clumsy and you can keep good care of it, you might like
> the flexibility of a digital camera.


Also, the high-end consumer cameras (as opposed to the DSLRs) often
give you much more photo capability for the weight than a film
camera. This might be important in backpacking and climbing.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <(E-Mail Removed)>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-01-2004
Ron Hunter <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> Ryan Morin wrote:
>> I am looking to purchase a new camera and need some advice as to
>> whether I should go digital or film.
>> I am mostly going to be using it for snapping pics while out camping,
>> canoeing, climbing etc. Typically I take more pics of scenery than
>> anything else.
>> I am looking at getting something that will be with me for many years
>> to come. If anyone has some opinions on this please let me know.
>> Strengths and weaknesses etc of both would be really appreciated.
>> RPM

>
> Film cameras are a mature technology. That is, you can buy a film
> camera and count on only slight changes from one year to the next, and
> likely nothing to make you want to buy a new one for several years (if
> not decades). This is NOT true of digitals which seem to be on a fast
> track for innovation and change at this time. If you want something
> that won't become hopelessly obsolete in a couple of years, stick to
> film.


Unless you consider film to be hopelessly obsolete today, of
course....
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <(E-Mail Removed)>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
 
Reply With Quote
 
chibitul
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-01-2004
In article <410ce995$0$25120$(E-Mail Removed)>,
"John Appleby" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Most CF cases aren't even vaguely waterproof.


heck, you can spill coke, coffee, even BOIL the CF cards:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3939333.stm

Now try that with film!
 
Reply With Quote
 
SleeperMan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-01-2004
David Dyer-Bennet typed:

> "SleeperMan" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
>> Ryan Morin typed:
>>
>>> I am looking to purchase a new camera and need some advice as to
>>> whether I should go digital or film.
>>>
>>> I am mostly going to be using it for snapping pics while out
>>> camping, canoeing, climbing etc. Typically I take more pics of
>>> scenery than anything else.
>>>
>>> I am looking at getting something that will be with me for many
>>> years to come. If anyone has some opinions on this please let me
>>> know. Strengths and weaknesses etc of both would be really
>>> appreciated.
>>>
>>> RPM

>>
>> I look this way: if you have film camera, you have 24 or 36 shots
>> (well, you can have more films with you...) and you think before
>> each and every shot you make - maybe it's not worthed... also you
>> can't really tell how that shot looks, if it's good, too dark, too
>> blurry etc...
>> With digital you have (normally) several 100 shots available, you
>> don't really think too much before you shoot, you just press the
>> shutter. You can see, how that shot looks, and if it's bad, you
>> delete it and take another one. at the end, with film camera you end
>> up with some 36 shots, of which about 10-15 are good, and with
>> digital with some 300 shots - of which 50 or 100 are good. But bear
>> in mind that for good digital you must buy a bit more costly one,
>> look for good zoom (analog, forget digital one), and possibly some
>> manual settings.

>
> What a bizarre view. Personally, I've carried as much as a couple
> hundred *rolls* of film with me. And if I'm shooting in RAW mode, I
> get just 19 shots on a compact flash card (bigger cards would solve
> that, but would break my current solution for off-loading cards in the
> field).
>
> I *do* find that digital improves my photography some; it lets me keep
> trying for the difficult shots, rather than getting discouraged by the
> expense. And it lets me know what's working and what doesn't work.


couple of hundred...That's almost a small truck size...
but really, that's why i told that if you want extreme quality, film one is
still the one.
Sure, RAW mode improves quality, but not as much as it increases space
consumption. For normal mortal people, low-compression JPEG is quite enough.
I wonder though, how professional photographers shoot - i saw many times
that they use digital cameras, and sure, they do have those very hi- priced
models, but still i wonder, do they use compression or 8G cards...


 
Reply With Quote
 
SleeperMan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-01-2004
Tonka typed:

> "Ryan Morin" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
>> I am looking to purchase a new camera and need some advice as to
>> whether I should go digital or film.
>>
>> I am mostly going to be using it for snapping pics while out camping,
>> canoeing, climbing etc. Typically I take more pics of scenery than
>> anything else.
>>
>> I am looking at getting something that will be with me for many years
>> to come. If anyone has some opinions on this please let me know.
>> Strengths and weaknesses etc of both would be really appreciated.
>>
>> RPM

>
> to add to SleeperMan, once you have your 24 or 36 film shots of which
> 5 or 6 may be good to reasonable, you then look at them once and
> place them either back into the pack they came in or an album which
> you get out maybe once or twice a year. With my digital pics I have
> them in folders (file) on my computer and I set the screen saver to a
> different folder (file) each week + I have a special folder where all
> the memorable ones are for a long term repeating screen saver.
>
> DJ


Totally true!


 
Reply With Quote
 
SleeperMan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-01-2004
John McWilliams typed:

> Lourens Smak wrote:
>> In article <410ce995$0$25120$(E-Mail Removed)>,
>> "John Appleby" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> once it is in its protective case, can obviously be subjected to
>>> pretty harsh elements. Most CF cases aren't even vaguely waterproof.

>>
>>
>> read this:
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3939333.stm
>>
>> Cards can be boiled in water and survive; nailing them to a tree is
>> when memory-cards give up...
>>

> Yes, and I hate when that happens!
>
> Ryan-
>
> Are you ready to take the plunge?


ROFL


 
Reply With Quote
 
Tim Smith
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-01-2004
On 2004-08-01, Dave Head <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Both kinds of cameras have expendables that are significant for camping
> and hiking.
>
> The film camera requires carrying a lot of film, but the battery is
> incredibly small and light on most cameras without a motor drive. The
> film is also

....
> The digital camera requires carrying lots of batteries. Small cameras
> with AA cells would probably be best, as the batteries tend to last for a
> while and are small and not too heavy. On larger cameras like some of the
> pro cameras, you


I'd say the digital definitely has the advantage here, in that for any given
volume of consumables you carry, you will get many more shots out of the
digital. E.g., a set of batteries lasts for more shots than a roll of film.

Another thing to consider is the possibility of recharging batteries. If
the original poster is camping, etc., in an area where he will have access
to his car periodically, he could recharge batteries using his car.

Also, there are fairly small solar-powered battery chargers. (Google for
"solar battery charger"). It looks like with one of these, one could keep a
digital going in the field indefinitely as far as batteries are concerned.

Memory cards might be the more important consumable to worry about for the
digital.

--
--Tim Smith
 
Reply With Quote
 
Tim Smith
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-01-2004
On 2004-08-01, John Appleby <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> you have the budget, you can take an almost unlimited number of shots. Film,
> once it is in its protective case, can obviously be subjected to pretty
> harsh elements. Most CF cases aren't even vaguely waterproof.


SanDisk has a line of "Industrial Grade" CF cards meant for things like military
applications. They might do the trick.

--
--Tim Smith
 
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
DSLRs or Slide Film or Colour Negative Film? ;o) Sharp Shooter Digital Photography 10 06-22-2005 05:44 AM
Ultimate digital vs film: 1gp digital vs SR71 reconnaissance cameras brian Digital Photography 108 12-18-2004 10:01 PM
After having 8mm film reels digitally archived, film looks very grainy/ filled with static. Is this digital-looking noise normal? + more 8mm film questions Phil Edry Digital Photography 11 10-10-2004 11:57 PM
Digital camera versus Digital Film Scanner Mike Digital Photography 6 07-05-2004 06:06 PM
digital images: from film vs from digital camera H. S. Digital Photography 10 11-08-2003 06:52 PM



Advertisments