View Single Post
Old January 24th 04, 08:27 PM
Tom Monego
external usenet poster
Posts: n/a
Default Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film?

In article ,

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 OM2.
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 when
compared with what is coming down the road.
Michael Weinstein | "Never underestimate the power of stupid
Nashua, NH | people in large groups."

It probably will beat it up, at full size 36x24mm the pure 35mm shot has more
potential, but big enlargements off the Kodak 14n will appear sharper. 8x10s
about the same, 11x14 will start to favor the Kodak. A way to get closer would
be to scan the 35mm with a dedicated slide scannerthen quality will equal out.
But if you even have standard optical prints made from 35mm High end digital
will be a superior quality print. Should you go out and spend 5 or 6 grand on a
14n and lenses, that is up to you. BTW there is a $1000 instant rebate running
on 14n's at the momment.
The 14n has some downsides, high noise levels at long exposure and at high
exposure indecies. There are many pros using them in controlled conditions. It
is kind of a camera that folks love to hate.