Digital or Film Views


Status
Not open for further replies.

authmn

New Member
Mar 14, 2003
71
0
0
Spore
Visit site
#1
I thought this shld be already out somewhere... but couldnt find it thru the search engine...
anyway my views on this as an amateur ....

Digital or Film for consumer cameras
the digital wins hands up....
1) it is must easier to use than a film based camera...
2) it allows u to see wat u have take and delete the "spoiled" photos (hence u can improve on ur photography skills easier)...
3) it actually does take better photos than the flim camera...
4) it allows the editing and cropping of photos to suit ur needs...
5) Point and shoot... no need skill...
6) bla bla bla

Digital or Film for Pro cameras
Very close fight but Film wins for this...
1) More accessories for the film (lenses, flashes, etc etc)
2) Film less likely to run out of batteries... haha... Digital cameras seems to run out faster... (pls do not tell me that u turn off the lcd for digital camera.... coz that is wat makes the digicam...)
3) U shoot better photos with SLR cameras than DSLR most of the time...
4) Manual always win computerised!!! (human brains r better than computer... i noe this from the chess challenge)

Some Buts...
1) Film consumer cameras r much much cheaper than digicam
2) DSLR seems to be cheaper than SLR cameras (together with all the accessories)
3) DSLRis lighter than SLR
4) More older ppl that do not noe how to use digital cameras... so thats why the popularity of film based :)P)
5) Bla Bla Bla

Why did i come up with all this views?? coz i actually thinking .... and finally tot of buying a SLR for taking professional photos.... and also at the same time have a digicam (not DSLR) to take normal photos on the run....
 

Dec 25, 2002
63
0
0
Visit site
#2
it actually does take better photos than the flim camera...
what do you mean? 'better photos' is a very vague term...

Point and shoot... no need skill...
u can do likewise with a film consumer camera... point and shoot... don't agree on the 'no need skill part' though...

Film less likely to run out of batteries... haha... Digital cameras seems to run out faster... (pls do not tell me that u turn off the lcd for digital camera.... coz that is wat makes the digicam...)
yes u off the LCD... cos u use the EVF instead...

DSLR seems to be cheaper than SLR cameras (together with all the accessories)
u kidding? DSLR cost around 3k+ while SLR of similar build cost under 1k for body alone... accessories are the same for both (flash, lenses etc)

DSLRis lighter than SLR
u sure? not always the case....

no offence but just some general views above~ :) somehow i get the feeling that yr definition of DSLR is actually 'prosumer'... and what is the purpose of the post? :dunno: to ask for opinions on which to buy? film or digital? or???:dunno:
 

FOOXX

New Member
Sep 7, 2002
414
0
0
Visit site
#3
it actually does take better photos than the flim camera
itz the photographer that countz ..... not the camera ..... if a perzon haz the correct skillz he can take good photoz alzo with a P&S ..... :bsmilie:

Point and shoot... no need skill...
dont agree with the "no need skill" ..... ever thought abt the compozition ..... ?? .....

U shoot better photos with SLR cameras than DSLR most of the time
again ..... itz not the camera but the photographer that countz .....

DSLR seems to be cheaper than SLR cameras (together with all the accessories)
dont think so ..... a D100 body alone cotz around $3600 ..... enough to get a SLR body + lenz + tripod .....

buying a SLR for taking professional photos
wat u mean by profezzional photoz ..... ?? .....

juzt my TCW ..... plz do not get offended ..... ;)

:D
 

authmn

New Member
Mar 14, 2003
71
0
0
Spore
Visit site
#4
why i make the post is to decide whether to buy a SLR or not.... (i tot i said this?? maybe the post is too long)
all the views on this is actually independent on the skills of the photographer of course....
 

Falcon

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2002
2,768
0
0
37
#5
Originally posted by authmn
I thought this shld be already out somewhere... but couldnt

Digital or Film for Pro cameras

3) U shoot better photos with SLR cameras than DSLR most of the time...
4) Manual always win computerised!!! (human brains r better than computer... i noe this from the chess challenge)

Why isit that you will get better photos with SLR than DSLR? Pls explain further. Maybe there is something interesting here that i am unawared of.

Manual always win computerised??? What has that to do with DSLR. U mean u just put the DSLR in front of your subject and it will compose/meter/shoot for you?? ;p Just kidding. Pls elaborate.
 

ivor

Senior Member
Jan 26, 2002
1,369
0
0
SINGAPOUR
Visit site
#6
In summary, most of your theory are wrong...

1. You don't need pro skill to take good pictures, but basic photography knowledge is needed even with Point & Shoot compact camera. Maybe you don't know, but most of the CS members would know that pictures taken using a compact camera are usually sharp at the center...

2. Why don't you try holding my E20 w/vertical grip (1.1 kg) & EOS 30 w/vertical grip and see which is more heavy...??

3. In digital, the darkroom man is the Photographer if he is doing the PS thingy, while in film, the fellow handling your film processing and print is in-charge. In film, you are this in-charge fellow, you can crop and manupulate the pictures too in the darkroom...

4. It is the man behind the camera to count in good picture... one may has the top of the line DSLR, but he is uses Program Mode to shoot, while another using a SLR, using Aperture Value. Who is the winner...?? I heard of someone complaint that his lens is not sharp, but at the end of the day, if his skill isn't there, why blame the lens. I have seen people using cheap compact camera, but the pictures came out unexpectedly sharp and nice.

5. Try star trekking on a digital SLR and film SLR... and see for yourself which is better...??

Just my worthless 2 cents opinion... You can always ignore the above.
 

markccm

Deregistered
Jan 25, 2003
2,095
0
0
Asylum, Ward 4444
Visit site
#7
Originally posted by authmn
why i make the post is to decide whether to buy a SLR or not.... (i tot i said this?? maybe the post is too long)
all the views on this is actually independent on the skills of the photographer of course....
I mean no offence, but some of ur ideas & perpective of DSLR & SLR are wrong.

Think if u have a big budget, go 4 a DSLR. If not, say u have a budget of around 2k, go ahead with a prosumer digicam or u can get an SLR with xtra stuff like lenses, tripod....

But if u want a shoot, view & throw kinda thing, & not bother about the technical expects of handling a camera, I think a prosumer or consumer digicam will suit fine.

To go more in-depth, a SLR or DSLR will be ideal. But a DSLR will cost u alot more.

INHO, I think a consumer or prosumer digicam is wat u r looking 4 from my analysis of ur post.

cheers ;)
 

Red Dawn

Senior Member
Jan 17, 2002
2,464
1
38
Singapore
www.5stonesphoto.com
#8
Hi

oh goodie, another film vs digital debate :rbounce:

if u compare image quality alone, then film (esp colour) is essentially dead and living on borrowed time - especially with the release of the Canon 1Ds. i haven't changed my stand where quality is concerned. Franklly, i'm quite shocked that Fuji and Kodak are still releasing new 35mm slide films!

wat has changed, however, is my stand on reasons to own film cameras :devil: Despite wat they say about "the image is THE most important thing", it's becoming apparent to me that it's not, and that there are still plenty of reasons to own film bodies and living with the advantages (a few) and inconveniences of film (a lot compared to digital).

using film also has the inherent advantage of NOT making you feel like u're a digital imaging artist instead of a photographer :) Producing an image on slide film is direct - producing a good image with digital involves you playing the role of a digital imaging artist.
 

Mr Fish

New Member
Nov 13, 2002
253
0
0
36
Serangoon
mrfish.clubsnap.org
#9
1. Most DSLR is based on the SLR. Just that instead of capturing the image on film, it uses CCD or CMOS. And both have Manual and other Automatic modes. Both cameras are computerised.

2. Using DSLR usually mean that you have to get the better lenses because the quality of the lenses are shown more evidently on the DSLR than SLR.

3. On the DSLR, you CANNOT use the LCD to compose your shots(unless you're tokng about the E10/20). The LCD is purely for reviewing purposes. Anyway, i think most people use the optical viewfinder to compose even if they could use their LCD. I believe it's more stable that way. But i might be wrong...

What i did is, i got myself a prosumer digicam first. Then got a SLR to slowly build up my collection of lenses. This is to prepare for the DSLR which i am saving up to buy soon. Juz for your information. :D


Originally posted by authmn

Digital or Film for Pro cameras
Very close fight but Film wins for this...
1) More accessories for the film (lenses, flashes, etc etc)
2) Film less likely to run out of batteries... haha... Digital cameras seems to run out faster... (pls do not tell me that u turn off the lcd for digital camera.... coz that is wat makes the digicam...)
3) U shoot better photos with SLR cameras than DSLR most of the time...
4) Manual always win computerised!!! (human brains r better than computer... i noe this from the chess challenge)

Why did i come up with all this views?? coz i actually thinking .... and finally tot of buying a SLR for taking professional photos.... and also at the same time have a digicam (not DSLR) to take normal photos on the run....
 

authmn

New Member
Mar 14, 2003
71
0
0
Spore
Visit site
#11
my own opinion for digital or film actually cost so much hatred for me..?? i am quite an amateur and so my opinions might be wrong... a lot of my pro photographer frdz told me that they take better photos with SLR cams than DSLR....
and for myself i have a digicam myself and deciding to buy a DSLR or SLR ... so that i can join my frdz in photography... from the looks of it, clubsnap seem to have more supporters of the DSLR...
yah i would agree some prosumer DSLR lookalike are very good... (nikon 5700, fuji s602 etc etc right?)
 

markccm

Deregistered
Jan 25, 2003
2,095
0
0
Asylum, Ward 4444
Visit site
#12
Originally posted by authmn
my own opinion for digital or film actually cost so much hatred for me..?? i am quite an amateur and so my opinions might be wrong... a lot of my pro photographer frdz told me that they take better photos with SLR cams than DSLR....
and for myself i have a digicam myself and deciding to buy a DSLR or SLR ... so that i can join my frdz in photography... from the looks of it, clubsnap seem to have more supporters of the DSLR...
yah i would agree some prosumer DSLR lookalike are very good... (nikon 5700, fuji s602 etc etc right?)
I dun say the word hate lah. Its juz some facts were ahem... lack of a better word, wrong.
But its ok, we r all learning. including myself.

I'm a SLR user. An old SLR in fact. Quite tempted to get a CP5700 too actually... :D

Coz DSLR like D100 too ex 4 me.
 

#13
Originally posted by Red Dawn
Hi

oh goodie, another film vs digital debate :rbounce:

if u compare image quality alone, then film (esp colour) is essentially dead and living on borrowed time - especially with the release of the Canon 1Ds. i haven't changed my stand where quality is concerned. Franklly, i'm quite shocked that Fuji and Kodak are still releasing new 35mm slide films!
it very strange to read that statement from the man with Leicas and top of te line Canon Film SLR.
I don't want to start any flame or 'holy war' here, but how do you get the idea of 'film (esp colour) is essentially dead'? Based on what? on the film vs 1Ds comparison on luminous landscape?
 

FOOXX

New Member
Sep 7, 2002
414
0
0
Visit site
#14
Originally posted by authmn
my own opinion for digital or film actually cost so much hatred for me..?? i am quite an amateur and so my opinions might be wrong... a lot of my pro photographer frdz told me that they take better photos with SLR cams than DSLR....
and for myself i have a digicam myself and deciding to buy a DSLR or SLR ... so that i can join my frdz in photography... from the looks of it, clubsnap seem to have more supporters of the DSLR...
yah i would agree some prosumer DSLR lookalike are very good... (nikon 5700, fuji s602 etc etc right?)
me believe all of uz juzt wanna share our viewz only ..... no such thingz on hatred ..... :bsmilie:

since u r planning to buy a SLR or DSLR ..... me think the thing to conzider (bezidez all the thingz that u said above) iz ur budget .....

another impt thing iz to azk ur frenz to lend their SLR/DSLR to u to try them handz-on ..... n see which wan suitz u .....

u can alzo azk the pple around here for their advice ..... can try going sown to SEED alzo .....

happy buying .....

:D
 

Red Dawn

Senior Member
Jan 17, 2002
2,464
1
38
Singapore
www.5stonesphoto.com
#15
Originally posted by nothing
it very strange to read that statement from the man with Leicas and top of te line Canon Film SLR.
I don't want to start any flame or 'holy war' here, but how do you get the idea of 'film (esp colour) is essentially dead'? Based on what? on the film vs 1Ds comparison on luminous landscape?
the reason is simple. Digital does not have to be "better" than film to overtake film as the main photographic medium. Digital only has to reach the stage where it is "good enough" for most pple. Then it will surely be adopted by most due to its inherent conveniences.

The 1Ds today has gone beyond "good enough". From that article on Luminous Landscape, it seems to even give drum scans a run for its money. With prices of DSLRs dropping every year, and with the rate of advancement of technology, it's a matter of time before a camera like the 1Ds drops to affordable prices.

with more pple flocking to digital, it will soon become less economically viable to stay in the film market for major manufacturers. Hence film will become a niche product for a select group of pple, hence my definition of "dead" and "living on borrowed time" :)
 

Dec 2, 2002
374
0
0
67
Moon
#16
digital is here to replace film, this is for sure, no matter we like it or not. There's just too much advantages of digital over film, and the capability margin is getting narrower. Its a matter how long film can stay in the new century.
 

YSLee

Senior Member
Jan 17, 2002
2,326
1
38
Visit site
#17
Originally posted by authmn

Why did i come up with all this views?? coz i actually thinking .... and finally tot of buying a SLR for taking professional photos.... and also at the same time have a digicam (not DSLR) to take normal photos on the run....
With your mentality and knowledge, sad to say, no matter what camera you use you'll never be anywhere near good.
 

#18
Originally posted by Red Dawn
Digital only has to reach the stage where it is "good enough" for most pple. Then it will surely be adopted by most due to its inherent conveniences.
What do you mean by 'good enough'? What should be good enouth ? Your prints? or pictures online ? for online pictures D30 is 'good enough' (personaly, I think D30 is an overkill for online shots), for prints - depends. Anyways, color reproduction of slide films (tones, hues, saturarion) is superior to any DSLR i've ever seen.

The 1Ds today has gone beyond "good enough". From that article on Luminous Landscape, it seems to even give drum scans a run for its money.
Yeah, right. The last review 'shows' that 1Ds superior to MF. But what is your end result? Slides? Prints? Online images? For me - slides, so there is not point for me to switch to DSLR, at least now.

With prices of DSLRs dropping every year, and with the rate of advancement of technology, it's a matter of time before a camera like the 1Ds drops to affordable prices.
Well, I remeber some discussions about SLR vs Rangefinders, long long time ago. The reasons were almost the same. So what? RFs are not dead! :)

with more pple flocking to digital, it will soon become less economically viable to stay in the film market for major
manufacturers. Hence film will become a niche product for a select group of pple, hence my definition of "dead" and "living on borrowed time" :)
I believe Kodak and Fuji have their reasons to support film research and release new films. I think that film market wouldn't be dead for (at least) next 10-20 years. Don't forget, that it's in Singapore and US ppl are switching to digital cameras, but it's very small market niche compare to film market in China, India and Indonesia.
 

#19
Originally posted by Goldmember
digital is here to replace film, this is for sure, no matter we like it or not. There's just too much advantages of digital over film, and the capability margin is getting narrower. Its a matter how long film can stay in the new century.
Could you please count them (these advantages)? I know only one! well, two actualy but anyway:
Advantage:
1. Dynamic ISO
2. Live histogram (not sure if it's a big advange but..)
 

tsdh

New Member
Jul 8, 2002
340
0
0
Singapore
Visit site
#20
Originally posted by nothing
Could you please count them (these advantages)? I know only one! well, two actualy but anyway:
Advantage:
1. Dynamic ISO
2. Live histogram (not sure if it's a big advange but..)
I add two more for you:
- Instant preview
- Faster turn around time than film
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom