hey guys, i'm looking to purchase a new camera, and i can't decide which is more worthy of my hard earned. A digital camera or a traditional film based camera.
the way i see it, each has its advantages.
- no developing costs
- able to view photos immediately on LCD screen
- can be quite small
- can (on some models) take video as well as stills
- can be uploaded to computer directly
- arguably better quality photos at a lower initial outlay
- photos can be viewed either as developed pictures or scanned on computer (some developing places will put them on CD or email them to you for free)
- better quality camera for lower cost
so what do u think? i know a lot of you have had experience with both types of cameras, so give me your advice, please.
I'd get a digi. I got a film camera a few months back, it's not really that great. I don't really have film all over the place, a digital would be much better for my needs at least. It's less hassle getting it all developed.
Sure it'll cost more to start with, but if you use it heaps and it last you a few years you'll get your worth out of it.
Well, for me personally a digital camera is the next best thing to a Ford. I bought mine 18 months ago and prior to that I've used analogue (my term for film) cameras, and while they provide great photos if the shot was taken properly, you don't know until you develop it. If you're taking a photo of your car or a plant it's no big deal because you can take another pic later on, but what if you're overseas on holiday? You'd be spewing if your prized shot of something spectactular ended up as a fuzz.
With a digicam you can see how the pic turned out immediately, except slight blurriness (hard to tell on a 6cm x 4 cm screen) but at least you can see what the pic looks like. On most you can also make short movies.
There are only 2 things that I personally like better about analogue cameras than digital ones.
1. Batteries. Most analgues use common, easily found batteries, whereas most digitals use proprietary batteries from the manufacturer. If you're going on a long trip or expect to take a lot of photos in one day then it's good invest in a second battery and keep it charged. If you can get a digicam that uses normal batteries then all the better.
2. Storage. Analogues have endless storage. Run out of film? Buy another roll and bung it in. Digicam: run out of memory? Tough! What do you do? Spend mega dollars on buying extra memory cards? Do you buy one of those Palm sized devices that have a memory card adapter and a hard disk in them to off load the images from your single memory card? Or do you carry your laptop everywhere?
Those 2 are the only (minor) gripes I have with digicams. Other than that it's the best gadget I've ever bought.
If you have the money then definitely get a digicam. Maybe even one extra battery and one extra memory card (and a big one at that).
__________________ Slothmobile™n. (slōthmōbēl)
Off-white EL Series II Falcon GLi Sapphire (4.0L Slothmatic™) with K&N Filtercharger, Tickford Sports Suspension, DBA Longlife Gold (front), DBA Longlife Slotted (rear) and Bendix Ultimates all round. Driven by The Slothman™.
The main deciding factor is what you want to use your camera for.
I have a Sony digital (3.2 megapixel) which is really good for pics of my family, car shows, spur of the moment snappy pics - but it is no good for action stuff, forget trying to get all the action at turn 1 at the motor racing because the auto-focus/processing etc is to slow, you can speed it up by half cocking but still no very good. Also anything that requires zoom more than what you see with naked eye is out as that is all the 3x optical zoom will do, can go to 6x digital but picture quality is compromised.
So I'm actually going to go for a mid range SLR as well with a 75-300mm zoom lens. This is more expensive and requires 2 cameras, unless you go the big bucks at around $5k for a digital SLR body, but is the only solution I can see. Good mid range SLRs can be had quite cheaply like the Canon EOS 300 which has good reviews, EOS 30 is even better but over $1000.
Anything with 3.0 mega pixcels and above will get better than film quality pics.
The next thing to think about is a quality printer.
The setup I have is.
1 Kodak DX4900 4.0mp camera. (not heaps customisble but takes a friggin brillient photo better than what I've seen from other cameras)
1 cannon s300 printer.
Now the 520 is the next step up from the s300 but I've found the s300 to be more than good enough for even full a4 print outs.
Breathe! It's only the internet....
I'd have to agree with Brendan and say that it really depends on what shots your looking at taking.
Nothing compares to SLR for fast action shots, but a digital camera is oh so easy in regards to uploading to computer (no scanner needed, and quality is diminished when scanning) and emailing/printing etc.
One main factor you should consider is whether or not you plan to print these photos out? We just bought a brand new Epson photo printer and it is simply fantastic. YOu have to buy the expensive 'premium glossy photo paper' to get top quality, but its well worth it, because you can edit your photos on the PC and print them out perfect quality.
We also bought a top of the line scanner. Its quite good, but no matter what resolution you scan at, you always lose a little bit of quality and colour depth.
In conclusion, i'd go for one of those 12 grand professional digital cameras
The AutoGuide.com network consists of the largest network of enthusiast-owned enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
AutoGuide.com provides the latest car reviews, auto show coverage, new car prices, and automotive news. The AutoGuide network operates more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share opinions as a community.