Digital vs. Film

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Ryan Morin, Aug 1, 2004.

  1. Ryan Morin

    Ryan Morin Guest

    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
    Ryan Morin, Aug 1, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Ryan Morin

    SleeperMan Guest

    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.
    At the end, with film you can miss some pretty good or dear scenes just
    because you think too much before shooting and you try to save shots for
    possible later good scenes, while with digital you end up with a lot of
    crap, which by the way can easily be deleted.

    Now you decide...i just tell you this: i did have (still do somewhere) film
    camera, and i used to shoot one film every year or so... maximum...now with
    digital, i made over thousand shots in less than one year...of which at
    least 100 are really good and it would be pitty if i missed them. I always
    thought, when i looked at good scene - this would be so nice if i could take
    a picture... - now i just press the shutter. And digitals are being really
    good. But, if you're for extreme high quality, film pics are still of more
    quality than digital - but you must have costly film camera then and you
    must be quite a photographer.
    SleeperMan, Aug 1, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Ryan Morin

    Tonka Guest

    "Ryan Morin" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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
    Tonka, Aug 1, 2004
    #3
  4. Ryan Morin

    Dave Head Guest

    On 31 Jul 2004 22:08:52 -0700, (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


    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
    relatively lightweight, although if you're going to take a lot of shots, it
    could get bulky. You also have the problem that you can't review your shots
    until they're developed - if you screw up something really neat, you won't know
    it 'til its too late.

    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
    have to deal with a big battery pack that weighs a lot. Some only last 2 1/2
    hrs. of shooting. But of course the medium, such as compact flash, can be had
    in gigabyte denominations, and even really large file sizes can be handled by a
    handfull of cards that will provide 1000's of shots of storage.

    I think I'd find a way to make digital work. Lug around heavy batteries or lug
    around bulky film - 6 of 1, half dozen of the other. Cameras can likely be
    found that have good battery life per picture taken, so you're going to want to
    research that for your purchase.

    Longevity will probably be equal, except that whatever digital you get will
    probably be surpassed rapidly by newer, better equipment. 30 years from now, I
    expect you'll likely still be able to get CF cards, but the cameras then will
    likely be 50 megapixels or more, and CF cards will be available with
    terabyte(s) storage. The risk there would be whether the smallest CF card you
    could get might be larger capacity than the biggest card your camera can
    handle. If your camera can currently accept a 4 Gb microdrive CF, but the
    electronics won't address more than that, but the smallest available CF card in
    2035 is 50 Gb, then you must hope that at some time between now and then your
    camera manufacturer offered an upgrade.

    The film camera 30 years from now has the risk that film could be rare. You'll
    probably still be able to buy film, but with the economy of scale in
    manufacturing being lost to the rarity of film sales, a roll might cost $40 in
    today's money's terms, and finding processing could be difficult. Finding
    specialty film such as very fast film, slide film, infrared film, maybe even
    black and white film could be impossible or very expensive.

    Dave Head
    Dave Head, Aug 1, 2004
    #4
  5. Ryan Morin

    John Appleby Guest

    "Ryan Morin" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    Regards,

    John
    John Appleby, Aug 1, 2004
    #5
  6. 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


    Ryan,
    To answer your question, a little more info is needed.

    1) Do you want the option of making big enlargements
    that show a wealth of detail?

    2) Do you use a tripod?

    3) For landscape images, do you maximize depth of field
    by stopping down?

    If the answer is no to all the above questions, then digital
    will probably be fine for you. If you answer yes, then
    maybe film would be better (it depends on how far you
    want to push the technology). Then, are you comfortable
    with working on your images on a computer (this takes
    a lot of time too).

    If you want a point and shoot for snapshots, there are many
    fine digital cameras that will be great. The instant
    feedback of digital helps teach and you know you've
    "got the shot" immediately. Just take at least 2 spare
    batteries.

    Digital versus film image detail is summarized at:
    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html

    If you want big enlargements of some of the places you visit,
    and use a tripod and slow speed film (like Fujichrome Velvia),
    and stop down to f/11, f/16, ..., then film, in my testing,
    and in my opinion will work better. If you want a DSLR
    and stop down for depth of field, dust on an electronic sensor
    can be a problem, so film would be better.

    If you want to get into wildlife photography, then digital will
    most likely be better if you get a DSLR.

    Roger
    Photos, other digital info at:
    http://www.clarkvision.com
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Aug 1, 2004
    #6
  7. Ryan Morin

    Ron Hunter Guest

    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.

    If, on the other hand, you like the features of immediacy and
    flexibility, and low per picture cost, then digital may be the way to
    go, but don't expect to keep the same camera for decades.
    Ron Hunter, Aug 1, 2004
    #7
  8. Ryan Morin

    Ron Hunter Guest

    John Appleby wrote:

    > "Ryan Morin" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>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.
    >
    > 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.
    >
    > 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.


    CF cards aren't adversely affected by water. Just dry them throughly
    before reuse.

    >
    > 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.
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > John
    >
    >
    Ron Hunter, Aug 1, 2004
    #8
  9. Ryan Morin

    Lourens Smak Guest

    In article <410ce995$0$25120$>,
    "John Appleby" <> 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...

    Lourens
    Lourens Smak, Aug 1, 2004
    #9
  10. Lourens Smak wrote:
    > In article <410ce995$0$25120$>,
    > "John Appleby" <> 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?

    --

    John McWilliams
    John McWilliams, Aug 1, 2004
    #10
  11. Ryan Morin

    Rebecca Ore Guest

    In article <ceinh4$t55$>,
    "Tonka" <> wrote:

    > "Ryan Morin" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > 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.
    Rebecca Ore, Aug 1, 2004
    #11
  12. "SleeperMan" <> 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, <mailto:>, <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/>
    David Dyer-Bennet, Aug 1, 2004
    #12
  13. "John Appleby" <> writes:

    > "Ryan Morin" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> 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, <mailto:>, <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/>
    David Dyer-Bennet, Aug 1, 2004
    #13
  14. Ron Hunter <> 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, <mailto:>, <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/>
    David Dyer-Bennet, Aug 1, 2004
    #14
  15. Ryan Morin

    chibitul Guest

    chibitul, Aug 1, 2004
    #15
  16. Ryan Morin

    SleeperMan Guest

    David Dyer-Bennet typed:

    > "SleeperMan" <> 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...
    SleeperMan, Aug 1, 2004
    #16
  17. Ryan Morin

    SleeperMan Guest

    Tonka typed:

    > "Ryan Morin" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> 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!
    SleeperMan, Aug 1, 2004
    #17
  18. Ryan Morin

    SleeperMan Guest

    John McWilliams typed:

    > Lourens Smak wrote:
    >> In article <410ce995$0$25120$>,
    >> "John Appleby" <> 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
    SleeperMan, Aug 1, 2004
    #18
  19. Ryan Morin

    Tim Smith Guest

    On 2004-08-01, Dave Head <> 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
    Tim Smith, Aug 1, 2004
    #19
  20. Ryan Morin

    Tim Smith Guest

    On 2004-08-01, John Appleby <> 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
    Tim Smith, Aug 1, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Phil Edry
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    1,194
    Derek Gee
    Oct 11, 2004
  2. Sharp Shooter

    DSLRs or Slide Film or Colour Negative Film? ;o)

    Sharp Shooter, Jun 20, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    1,077
  3. Rick Baker
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,168
    Scott W
    Mar 17, 2006
  4. Replies:
    5
    Views:
    3,922
    Michael Benveniste
    Jun 13, 2006
  5. Progressiveabsolution

    Negative Print film vs. Slide Film

    Progressiveabsolution, Jul 4, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    677
    Stacey
    Jul 5, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page