 BetterPhoto Member |
film vs. digital I have a Canon Rebel 2000 that I absolutely love. I realize there are many advantages to a digital, but I'm reluctant to give my Canon up. Am I missing the boat, and holding on to an obsolete piece of equipment, or should I keep it and let my husband do the photography on our vacations with his ultra-slim digital?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
There's no reason you can't do both! I personally prefer a DSLR to a compact camera. I've had 2 compacts and neither produced the same quality of images as does a DSLR. You would love a DSLR and would probably find yourself in the same place I am. I have an elderly Canon A-1 I always loved but since going digital I find I never use it.
|
|
|
|
||
|
robert G. Fately |
Cynthia, you are missing nothing, unless you think you are. Film and digital each have their advantages - I still use both as do many others. FUji and Kodak both announced new films recently (Fuji is bringing back the original Velvia, which went away for a while - yippee!) With film, you never have to worry about a ditry sensor ruining every shot (since the next roll of film, if not frame, will be a fresh start). And if you store them properly, your negatives or slides won't suddenly become unuseable (as cheap CD or DVD backups can over a few years' time). For that matter, you don't need to bulk up your computer system to handle film, do you? Also, unless you get a so-called "full frame" DSLR, your wide angle lenses won't be so wide angle with digital. Of course, digital has its advantages as well - immediate gratification, ability to change sensitivity (ISO) from shot to shot if you like, and less expense per shot (essentially free). My poin tis, do not be sucked into the stupid religious wars between folks regarding how one is better than the other. They are both means to an end - to get a print on paper or an image on a screen (of course, for the latter it eventually must be digitized anyway). If you love your film camera, keep on truckin'.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Christopher A. Walrath |
Bob and SHaron are right. Follow your creative heart. Film holds more detail than digital. Digital is easier to manipulate than film. Both do just as fine. So do as you wish. And good luck.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John P. Sandstedt |
In my opinion, there is very little difference between film and digital; however, I must say digitalis far more convenient. You have a camera, you have a lens, you have a recording medium. You follow basic rules of exposure, adjusting shutter speed lens opening, etc. You use appropriate filters on-camera. You record am image on film or a flash card. The difference comes when you "process" the image. You work in a darkroom or send your film for developing/ printing. Or, you upload your picture files from camera to computer and do some film editing and printing. You can enjoy the best of both world if you scan your prints, negatives and slides and then do the editing. In my experience, there's not too much difference in prints below 8X12 made with film and digital. Where the real marvel hits is when you want to make large prints and, that's where digital wins hands down. If you're husband has an ultraslim digital, let him take the digital images. He can take that camera anywhere. You'll have to schlepp your SLR and lenses, but you'll get better pictures. Bob's absolutely right - other digital advantages: immediate gratification seeing your picture and ability to change ISO shot by shot. But, as to overall cost, I don't know. You can buy a new film SLR and two lenses, a tripod, a general purpose flash, a memory card and, maybe a tripod for what I paid for my Canon 30D body. Then, there's the cost of your computer, printer, editing program [Photoshop CS2 $550-850,] paper and INK!!!!. If you never make a print and if you forget the hardware costs, digital is inexpensive. Using film can also be inexpensive. Take you film to a one-hour service and ask for ONLY a Kodak CD and the negatives. Avoid the high printing costs. Load the CD in your computer and edit, print only the good images. Having the negatives always allows you to scan your pictures if you need/want to. I had my last three rolls developed and the images placed on a Kodak CD. Total cost: $2.95. Can't beat that. Now, I print only my "good" shots from film.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||