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

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Steven C \(Doktersteve\), Jan 23, 2004.

  1. <> 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.
    Steven C \(Doktersteve\), Jan 23, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

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

    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
    Jerome H. Gitomer, Jan 23, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. <> 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.
    Michael A. Covington, Jan 23, 2004
    #3
  4. Steven C \(Doktersteve\)

    Hils Guest

    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
    Hils, Jan 23, 2004
    #4
  5. Steven C \(Doktersteve\)

    The Wogster Guest

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

    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.
    The Wogster, Jan 23, 2004
    #5
  6. Steven C \(Doktersteve\)

    Newsman Guest

    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.
    Newsman, Jan 23, 2004
    #6
  7. 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 <>
    > Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.film+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.
    >
    >
    >
    Michael Weinstein, M.D., Jan 24, 2004
    #7
  8. Steven C \(Doktersteve\)

    John Horner Guest

    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
    John Horner, Jan 24, 2004
    #8
  9. Steven C \(Doktersteve\)

    otzi Guest

    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.
    otzi, Jan 24, 2004
    #9
  10. Re: Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film?

    "John Horner" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > > 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.
    Michael A. Covington, Jan 24, 2004
    #10
  11. Steven C \(Doktersteve\)

    brian Guest

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

    "Michael Weinstein, M.D." <> wrote in message
    news:BC37556E.21232%...
    > 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.film+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
    brian, Jan 24, 2004
    #11
  12. Steven C \(Doktersteve\)

    brian Guest

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

    "Michael A. Covington" <> wrote
    in message news:...
    >
    > "John Horner" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > > 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.
    >
    >

    EXACTLY!!!, WELL SAID THAT MAN.

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



    ---
    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
    brian, Jan 24, 2004
    #12
  13. Steven C \(Doktersteve\)

    BCampbell Guest

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

    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
    news:UesQb.1952$...
    >
    > "Michael Weinstein, M.D." <> wrote in message
    > news:BC37556E.21232%...
    > > 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.film+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
    >
    >
    BCampbell, Jan 24, 2004
    #13
  14. Steven C \(Doktersteve\)

    ktphotonics Guest

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

    Define 'better'?

    On 23/1/04 3:05 am, in article 40104918.9757.6ABAB2D@localhost,
    "" <> wrote:

    > If people like both of them why don't manufacturers make a camera that uses
    > both
    > technologies like those dual DVD/VHS players?
    >
    ktphotonics, Jan 24, 2004
    #14
  15. Re: Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film?

    "brian" <> wrote in message
    news:UesQb.1952$...

    > 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.


    Exactly -- there's the cost factor.

    2MP and 3MP digital cameras have replaced casual snapshots -- the pictures
    that people would take inexpertly with an Instamatic or whatever. Digital
    is just fine for that purpose.

    Digital cameras are also taking over the market for pictures for publication
    (Web or print), where the image needs to be digitized for production
    purposes anyhow, and need not be terribly big. In that situation, people
    are willing to spend a great deal more on a digital camera because of the
    speed and the lack of film and processing costs.

    But film is still the cheapest path to the highest-quality images.
    Michael A. Covington, Jan 24, 2004
    #15
  16. Re: Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film?

    "BCampbell" <> wrote in message
    news:f4267702bc0249d780649f23f2ad7f65@news.1usenet.com...
    >
    > 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...


    Good point. I think all of the cameras I use, film and digital, are
    obsolete! I don't think even one of them is in current production. And I
    have a lot of cameras... the most-used are Coolpix 990, Nikon F3, Nikon N70,
    Olympus OM-1...

    They still work!
    Michael A. Covington, Jan 24, 2004
    #16
  17. Steven C \(Doktersteve\)

    Pixmaker Guest

    On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 03:49:22 GMT, "Michael Weinstein, M.D." <> wrote:

    >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.


    I don't consider my F-4s or my Hasselblads old, crappy cameras!


    -- DaveinFLL
    ===========================
    "It's not the heat, it's the humidity."
    ===========================
    (Think the humidity's bad? You should watch us vote!)
    Pixmaker, Jan 24, 2004
    #17
  18. Steven C \(Doktersteve\)

    dooey Guest

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

    "BCampbell" <> 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.
    dooey, Jan 24, 2004
    #18
  19. Steven C \(Doktersteve\)

    Paul H. Guest

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

    "Michael Weinstein, M.D." <> wrote in message
    news:BC37556E.21232%...
    > 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.
    Paul H., Jan 24, 2004
    #19
  20. Steven C \(Doktersteve\)

    Tom Monego Guest

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

    In article <BC37556E.21232%>,
    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
    Tom Monego, Jan 24, 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. T

    Re: the better OS to use for older hardware ?

    T, Nov 29, 2008, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    466
    Eeyore
    Dec 3, 2008
  2. tony sayer

    Re: the better OS to use for older hardware ?

    tony sayer, Nov 29, 2008, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    442
    Eeyore
    Dec 3, 2008
  3. John Holmes

    Re: the better OS to use for older hardware ?

    John Holmes, Dec 1, 2008, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    433
    Eeyore
    Dec 3, 2008
  4. Eeyore

    Re: the better OS to use for older hardware ?

    Eeyore, Dec 3, 2008, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    723
    Jamie
    Dec 9, 2008
  5. John

    Re: the better OS to use for older hardware ?

    John, Dec 3, 2008, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    419
    Baron
    Dec 4, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page