Digital Or Film

[Area+browN]

I fancy getting into photography as i need another hobby and I have a 10 week holiday coming up and was wondering...

Digital or Film (As in analugue..roles of film, don't know the correct term)

What are the pro's and cons

I have a...

Digital - nikon cool pix 995 (think thats the number)

film - a cannon something (not very specific, but it cost alot new )

What are the pro's and con's of each ?

Thx

-Matty

[Urban Grafix®]

I prefer Film...jut because.

[Area+browN]

That was my thought...it seems more satisfying imo..

SLR is the word i was lookin for in last post

[Rainer]

I think it's a very tough question. Sur, if you are looking for an SLR digi, you have to put the price, the cheapest to my knowledge, about 2500 euros, naked, without lenses but for about 1000 you can get a bridge cam.
I'm pleased with my Minolta D7i and in manuel focus it's almost like an reflex.
you can also see the results straight away and in the end you only keep the pics you like.
I did some inkjet prints with a great quality.
I think you understood that I'm into digital photography but have much respect for all those great film photographers round here:)

[fotodog]

Film: You have more options for the buck. You have a greater range of film speeds.
You have a greater range of accessories
You have more flexibility with systems.
You have more latitude in print options and sizes. You can print anything from wallets/thumbnails to posters from the same neg with similar quality.
drawback: film and processing costs. storage of negs and prints.



Digital: Instant gratification of image
more flexibilty frame to frame i.e one shot b&w, next shot colour.
replaceable media if your thoughtful and bring a backup card you can keep on shooting.
drawback: you need to shoot for the max size you want to print for best quality.
no development costs.
ease of uploading/emailing of images.
drawback: battery drain is tremendous so you need to carry plenty of extras.

My determination is that I will always carry my SLR and always be stockpiled with film and accessories, but I also carry a digital camera so I can get the shot.

If you only have enough money for one or the other, I say go film first and start saving for a digital.

have fun

[Morpyre]

i started with film cameras when i first got into photography all those years ago - my main tools are my:

Minolta Dynax 500si Super SLR camera with 28-80mm - 70-210mm and 500mm lenses

i got into digital camera's and about 2 - 3 years ago i bought my first digital SLR camera:

Olympus Camedia C2500L 2.5mp

i tend to only use my digital camera these days for my photographic work because the quality is so good it is more than adaquate for my pro work.

i personally now prefer digital because it is so much quicker and more convenient - i can see and remove pics on location and put them straight onto my pc when i get home rather than waiting for the film to finish, then pay for developing and eventually find out if the pics came out or not.

both have their own advantages and i love both.

from peter "morpyre" turner

[Stellor]

I shot with both. When I can afford a high end digital I will replace my film camera because it's 35 years old. I have recently had some bad experiences with film labs ruining film, so at the moment I'm kind of down on film.
BUT, film has the largest dynamic range and you can pull more detail out then digital. If you go with film get a good scanner and work from negatives or slides, these are the raw exposures with all the information.

Sam

[loiosh]

I'm shooting horses, wildlife and other animals here.
I like the digital because I can see right away if I've got a good shot - a running horse is a very tricky subject to get a good shot on, you only have a split second to time it right or the animal's legs look broken. The digital is a little trickier to time than the film, but you get the shot right now and can toss the ones that didn't come out right.
The film camera is a lot easier to time and you can get more pics closer together than with the digital. Takes a lot less time to reset the shutter and advance the film than it takes to aquire the data and write it to media. With film you can take higher res images or work with faster shutter speeds when shooting motion, like a running horse, or a humming bird.
I guess I'd say, if you're shooting motion go with film and a single ring zoom, or better yet autofocus, if you're shooting mostly static subjects then go with a 3MP or higher digital. And if you go with digital, make sure you have a lense with decent OPTICAL zoom. None of that digital stuff ;)

[Denny]

Digital is becomming more affordable and popular and I would go for digital if I were you. Film is comparable to a 6mp camera and 6mp cameras are expensive but you'll end up saving the money from the cost of film & developing errors. With film you can develop photos yourself using chemicals but it's time consuming, there's very few techniques compared to digital, and it's expensive. Although printer, paper, and ink is expensive, you can find alternatives like getting futureshop or other photo finishing shops to develop it for you (at a higher quality too). If you can afford digital, go for digital. And since you're willing to get "fancy" with photography, get a camera with SLR features.

[Denny]

I forgot to mention; if you're going for long exposure photography, film will be a better choice since affordable ones can have shutter speeds over 15 seconds. Since digital cameras use a CMOS or CCD sensor, the long exposure will make the photo grainy & sharper. Film will make it soft but less sharp but there are film cameras that can take 6 hours exposures without making you pay thousands. I don't know of any digital cameras thats capable of taking 6 hour exposure photos.

[Area+browN]

WELL...i have both a digital and an SLR film camera (thingy bob what u call it )

both good quaility...so im gonna experiment with both, see which i like

:D thx for the advice