| User | Comment |
|---|
| joachim | | posted 15-Mar-2000 9:55am |
"Keep on rockin in the E world..." Digital is the only reasonable way to take a photograph. And if you disagree today, wait n years and you'll be satisfied. |
| phi | | posted 15-Mar-2000 10:31am |
I keep waiting for digital cameras to be better, in terms of grain size, than the Real Thing. And they are, if you want to spend $10,000. But consumer grade cameras just aren't there yet. |
romkey  | | posted 15-Mar-2000 10:42am |
the only reason I tend to take photos is to have them online, so I like using a digital camera better |
| romkey | | posted 15-Mar-2000 10:44am |
joachim - I don't think the quality of consumer digital cameras is nearly as good as traditional cameras yet... a lot of them don't have good optics and it shows. |
| jonathan | | posted 15-Mar-2000 11:04am |
The reason I have a camera is so I can show stuff I've seen to other people, and it's much easier to show those things online than via a physical image. Therefore, I use a digital camera for the convenience - it's pretty cool to be hundreds or thousands of miles away and still be able to show someone what you saw that day by emailing the picture to them. A person who is really into using color accuracy, f-stops, using different lenses, etc. will probably prefer a film camera. A digital camera that has regular camera-grade optics (Olympus uses 'em, dunno about other brands) and takes 640x480 pictures will work just fine for the average person and could be had for $300-$800, depending on what you go for. A couple of caveats: The effective shutter speed of digital cameras is fairly low, so you're more likely to get blurry images of stuff that is in motion. Also, go with a camera that has an optical zoom or both optical and digital - avoid a camera with just digital zoom. The digital zoom gets grainy/pixellated very quickly. |
| ILJ | | posted 15-Mar-2000 11:21am |
If I need a photo to look good, I'll use a conventional camera. If it's something quick and dirty, digital is the way to go. |
| drdt | | posted 15-Mar-2000 1:18pm |
I buy those disposable cameras on the rare occasions I want pictures. |
Enheduanna  | | posted 15-Mar-2000 1:27pm |
If I want prints (which I prefer for resolution and for showing to others), especially b/w, I'll use a conventional camera (one of which I also happen to own). If I want a picture to put up online, then I'll ask a friend with a digital camera to take the picture for me. I have no interest in owning a digital camera at this point, because I think the quality is so poor. |
| Maggie | | posted 15-Mar-2000 1:32pm |
I like the film camera, but I have never used a digital camera. |
| gilly | | posted 15-Mar-2000 3:36pm |
If I only had to have one camera, I'd probably stick with my film camera. But there are a lot of situations in which I'd like to use a digital camera. |
| magbast | | posted 15-Mar-2000 3:49pm |
i prefer a regular ole 35mm, but it would be nice to have a digital camera...all we have is a quickcam |
| cpierson | | posted 16-Mar-2000 9:35am |
I like both, but for different reasons -- digital for speed, film for quality. |
| msgman | | posted 16-Mar-2000 12:08pm |
Digital is great for speed, especially if the photos are intended for online use. But film is still well ahead in terms of value for money - even a cheap film camera will give better quality than anything other than the most expensive digital kit. And the most expensive digital kit is way, way more expensive than the equivalent quality on film.
I do quite a lot of photography, and I always carry a small digital camera around with me in case I see something I want a snap of. But for serious work (weddings, graduations, etc) I use film. |
| Matt | | posted 17-Mar-2000 12:30am |
I like my good ol' film camera. |
| robin | | posted 20-Mar-2000 8:49pm |
I don't own a camera, and I don't have much of an opinion about which kind is better. My strongest opinion about cameras is that I don't want them pointed at me. |
| milktree | | posted 25-Mar-2000 11:13pm |
Phi: sorry, but even the $10,000 digital cameras don't beat a $8 roll of film. Film scanners will get 2700dpi easily (making an image of roughly 3800x2500 pixels ) which doesn't match the grain of good film. The best digital cameras will do 3000x2000, cost $20,000, and are big and bulky. That will buy a lot of film and a kick ass film scanner. |
| phi | | posted 27-Mar-2000 2:21pm |
milktree: Phase One and Dicomed make medium-format digital backs in the 4K-5K pixel range for around $7,000. Of course a medium-format camera body and a decent selection of lenses will set you back another $3000, and you're right about "big and bulky", but it's still possible to beat film on grain size for ten grand. |
| BlueberryMuffin | | posted 31-Mar-2000 10:17pm |
Digital cameras are wonderful. I wish I owned one of my own. You can choose which pictures you want to keep so you never get stuck with bad ones, you can take the same picture over 100 times if you want until you get it perfect, and you can take pictures that most places refuse to print for you. |
| joachim |
milktree: Do magazines still use film? I thought they had all gone digital by now. |
| Zang | | posted 25-Apr-2000 9:54am |
I have a film camera, it is broken, haven't used it for years. Don't own a dididal one yet, maybe get one later. |
| magbast | | posted 26-Apr-2000 9:32pm |
i thought you said one of your old roommates stole your dididal... |
| Enheduanna | | posted 26-Apr-2000 10:40pm |
*chuckle chuckle* |
| magbast | | posted 27-Apr-2000 12:14am |
*magbast bows*...thank you...thank you... |
