BetterPhoto Q&A
Category: New Questions

Photography Question 



To love this question, log in above
8/21/2002 2:37:10 PM

pete    well digital is nice because it is fast and easy to take a send pictures. The down side to that is on some less expenceive cameras the quality of the picture can be affected. besides that there great

To love this comment, log in above
3/26/2003 11:42:59 AM

Bill McFadden   Digital cameras give you instant feedback. Many digital cameras allow you to change ISO settings to meet the conditions. They have other flexible options that allow decsions to be made in camera on whether to capture an image in color or in black and white. At this time, though, the file size offered by digital cameras still does not match the quality of film.
35mm SLR film cameras allow the use of interchangeable lens and allow the photgrapher to decide how the image will be captured with greater flexibility than a digital "point and shoot" can offer.
I recommend using 35mm SLR film cameras for now, until price of 35mm SLR digital cameras drops and their resolution increases to match film. Given the pace of the improvements to digital cameras and the continued decrease in cost, I suspect we will see an affordable digital 35mm SLR camera that can rival film's resoultion within two to three years.
You can always use a scanner to convert prints or slides to digital images. You can purchase a 35mm SLR system and a scanner for the same price as a new high end "point and shoot" digital camera.

To love this comment, log in above
3/26/2003 5:07:25 PM

Judith A. Clark   I have a SLR Digital, and would never go back. It's easier to learn, because of the instant feedback. It's cheaper to use in the long run. Factoring in the expense of film and good processing, the amount I shot, and time and effort, mine is paying for its self quickly. I just don't see the resolution problem. I print as large as 11x14, and the prints rival any professional prints I have had done in the past. In fact the are much sharper, and more color correct then any-thing I ever scaned and coverted to digital. At about $2000 its a hugh expense, you must be serious to spend that kind of money, but in my opinion its worth every penny.

To love this comment, log in above
3/27/2003 3:40:00 AM

Bill McFadden   Having never used a digital camera, I have to go with what I have read and what I have been told on the plus and minus side of the ledger. If you can afford to drop $2900 + on a Canon D60 or its Nikon equivalent, You can get quality images and the flexibility of the 35mm SLR system. When you decide on the cost/benefit ration, consider several things. The price of memory, the greater drain on batteries, the slightly higher cost per print of ink jet products (or using machines that make prints from electronic media,)versus the lower cost of batteries and the much higher cost of film in the long run compared to memory storage media. Digital cameras in the long run may be less expensive than using film cameras. The "may" part depends on how much you shoot and how long you intend to keep your current digital system before replacing it with a newer model. (Of course, replacing a film camera should also be part of the equation.)
Digital cameras, with one exception that I know of, increase the focal length lens. The ratio varies but is typically 1.3x the focal length of the same lens on a film based camera. Definite plus if you wish to have a longer teleophoto lens but a definite disadvantage if you like wide angle lens. If you like landscape photography, you have to factor in the cost of a wide angle fixed lens or zoom lens that is starts at 20mm focal length or possibly use the TAMRON 24mm to 135mm lens. (I would recommend the TAMRON lens in this case.)
Nikon has produced a series of lens that do not have this problem. From one article I read, I believe this set of lens cannot be used on Nikon film cameras. Canon recently produced a camera that offers a 1:1 ratio for lens but that body costs anout $10,000.
A scanner that can match or surpass a $3000 +/- digital camera runs at least $350.00, The best scans that I have seen from these systems come from slide film. If you look in the market for one of these products, the best scanners include DIGITAL ICE software.
Bottom line, point and shoot digital cameras cannot compare at the present time with film 35mm cameras. Digital SLRs can at print size up to but not surpassing 11" by 14" when compared to film cameras but, if you shoot a lot per year, are a better buy.

To love this comment, log in above
3/28/2003 9:25:54 AM

Judith A. Clark   The only comment I have is your off on the price Canon D60 and Nikon D100 run $1,999.00 not $2,900.OO Thats a huge difference. I don't know where you got your pricing info, but they run about the same everywhere on the web. As far a battery drain I was concerned about this, but the rechargeable batteries, that came with my nikon last a long time, and I just recharge them when they get low, so I save money there too.

To love this comment, log in above
3/28/2003 3:32:32 PM

Bill McFadden   I used list prices apparently rather than the actual stree prices. Checked B & H photovideo website and checked the prices on Canon SLR digital camera bodies. The D60 goes for $2,199.95. The D30 is even less, selling at $2,099.95. Top of the line digital SLR cameras in the Canon line go for
$$3,999.00 and the new, exceptional Canon EOS 1D goes for $7,999.95. Since they keep dropping about $1000.00 for each new generation, I will hold off on buying an ELAN 7 and check into prices on CANON digital SLRs about two years from. Thanks for the tip!

To love this comment, log in above
3/29/2003 9:28:28 AM

Dave R. Mikkelson   One huge advantage with digital is you can experiment with photo a lot easier. You can shoot from several angles and see the result now, instead of have to process the film. I have do not have one of the so called top of the line digitals(sony cybershot DSC-S85) but I am very pleased with what I can do with it. I also purchased an adapter so I can add differant lenses as needed. I don't print my own pictures but many outlets are doing digital prints in the one hour format now and the good thing about that is you still have the control over what your picture looks like. I do not waste film on "bad pictures" any more because you print only what you like. About the only thing I don't like is there seems to be a slight delay when you press the shutter release. But with practice I have learned to deal with that. It makes it harder to take action shots. If anyone has any ideas or can tell me what I may be doing wrong I would appreciate it. For me, I will never buy another "film based camera."

To love this comment, log in above
6/15/2003 6:05:05 PM

Vlad    it's important to notice the next :
1. Canon cameras hide in Exif private area next information: Flash mode, Focus Mode, "Easy shooting" mode, Contrast, Saturation, Sharpness, ISO, Metering mode, Focus type, AF point selected, Exposure mode, Flash details, Focus mode, White balance, Flash bias, Shutter curtain sync, AF point used.
2. It's only several values exist in public area of Exif and finally it's means what you must have Canon camera and Canon printer cause ExifPrint software from canon do not process private areas of Nikon, Casio, Olympus and etc.
3. All cameras vendors have private exif areas and usually all important information there. Means market war - you must to have camera and printer from the same vendor - Epson vs Epson and etc. Just some companies support Epson printers. But main monsters like Canon and HP support only own cameras.
4. sRGB colour space from digital camera is little part of the perceptual space and film colour space at least in 2 time more.
5. Still your camera make a RGB images and you never take a quality.

To love this comment, log in above
8/28/2003 6:29:40 PM

Log in to respond or ask your own question.