Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film?
"brian" wrote in message
Never mind an OM2, even a centon DF300, at a cost of £70 for the body
produce better prints than the Kodak,The other main point you left out
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
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.
Exactly -- there's the cost factor.
2MP and 3MP digital cameras have replaced casual snapshots -- the pictures
that people would take inexpertly with an Instamatic or whatever. Digital
is just fine for that purpose.
Digital cameras are also taking over the market for pictures for publication
(Web or print), where the image needs to be digitized for production
purposes anyhow, and need not be terribly big. In that situation, people
are willing to spend a great deal more on a digital camera because of the
speed and the lack of film and processing costs.
But film is still the cheapest path to the highest-quality images.