View Single Post
Old January 24th 04, 11:00 AM
external usenet poster
Posts: n/a
Default Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film?

"Michael Weinstein, M.D." wrote in message
They were selling the new Kodak 14 megapixel camera (with Nikon lenses) at
Ritz and I asked them how it compared in output to my venerable Olympus

The OM2, they said, beats it up. It will take a while for digital to equal
35mm and it will take a very long while for it to equal medium format.
Someday it probably will. But it isn't someday yet, and all the digital
cameras you can buy today will be useless museum pieces in a few years

compared with what is coming down the road.

Never mind an OM2, even a centon DF300, at a cost of 70 for the body will
produce better prints than the Kodak,The other main point you left out there
is the cost of that 14 megapixel camera, a price tag of somewhere in the
region of 4000 is being thrown about, hardly an affordable way for joe
bloggs to take pics , is it, then in a few years 14megapixels will be entry
level and you will have to shell out another 4000 for the next big
megapixel camera, of course if you want cheap digital imaging, you could
alway buy something with FOVEON X3 technology, LOL.


Never underestimate the power of large groups on stupid people, lol

Michael Weinstein | "Never underestimate the power of stupid
Nashua, NH | people in large groups."

From: Newsman
Newsgroups:,, m+labs
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 21:05:40 GMT
Subject: Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras

that use

If people like both of them why don't manufacturers make a camera that

technologies like those dual DVD/VHS players?

That's simple; The camera would be far too expensive, too cumbersome and
most people would never use the film feature. Only the professional
photog would use the digital feature for test shooting.

Most of the medium format cameras have removable backs and can
take a digital back for straight shooting or test shooting.
__________________________________________________ ____________________


Film produces the most cost effective HIGH RES Image compared to
the cost of an expensive 5, 6 or higher MegaPixal Camera. If you are
a professional Photog that justifies the cost and can produce a
considerable profit, then High Res Digital cameras are the tools
that offer you another method of producing Images.

As for Picture quality is concerned, any Digital system that works
at 6 MegaPixal or Higher and choosing the correct lens produce amazing

Digital - Can use the memory indefinitely as you unload images to PC's
Digital - No processing costs if all work remains Digital
Film - No waiting for Memory to store image. Shooting models who
change position for example.
Slide & Negative Film - Can be digitally scanned and filled away for
future reference.
Film - Can produce much larger Images more cost effectively than does

Digital - Is good for Still Life shooting, Scenic and static subjects.
Film - is Just as good; In some cases better than Digital in color


Film Damages easily
Film - Added cost for processing.
Film - Can be damaged during processing.
Film - Scratches easily.

Digital - At the present time, Professional Digital Cams are cost
prohibitive. Hopefully competition among the major camera manufacturer's
will eventually bring down the cost. Though I doubt it.
e.g. 5 & 6 Megapixal Cams. $900 - $1900 and the Kodak 15 MegaPixal
costs $10,000.00 or more !!!!

Like all other product limitations, 5 & 6 Megapixal Digital Cams do not
produce images larger than 11 x 14 inches with High Picture quality.
Film on the other hand still produce images at 11 x 14 and higher.

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (
Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 19/01/2004