What are the benifits of haveing a Digital Camera over Old Style?
- Thread starter ALPHA
- 25 comments
- 990 views
- 4,036
Convenience, mostly. No developing time, connect to the PC, blah, blah, blah. The quality is getting pretty good too....although a professionally developed 35mm exposure still edges it out in the fine detail department.
Basically, they're good for snapshot takers - like me.
Basically, they're good for snapshot takers - like me.
Concept
(Banned)
- 7,297
I have just recently gotten my hands on a digital camera. In my opinion, it is better than normal cameras. I really don't like having to drop of my camera so my photos can get developed. I never feel like doing it anyway. With the digital camera I have just recently gotten, I just point and shoot. The, I plug it into my computer and I am ready to share my photos.
- 2,660
uh youre wrong there mate. ive got a kodak DX3500. its got a 2.2 megapixel resolution and 3 times digital zoom. its got 2 different resolutions (1800x1200 and 900x600) and with the 32 meg card holds 54 1800x1200 shots and 197 900x600 shots. i can also use the 1.5x1 inch LCD screen to get a perfect view of the picture im going to take. after ive taken it, i can view it and choose to keep it or delete it and take another. either way ive wasted no space unlike a 35mm camera. its got 4 different plash types, a timer, time and date stamp and all that kind of crap that a 35mm has.
it uses a USB transfer cable and can transfer 30 700KB pictures in a matter of seconds. then i can browse them, open photoshop and crop, edit red eyes, light and dark balances etc. it doesnt have any ongoing costs apart from batteries which are a negligable cost if you get rechargable nickle metal hydrides (they last for ages).
it cost me 600 bucks (AU$) and has already paid for itself over and over. its a great camera and takes great quality pictures. if anyone wants to see how good the quality is, PM me with your email and ill send a few photos and you compare them to a 35mm photo. i would upload them to GTP but id have to reduce the quality to comply with the 100k limit.
- 2,660
Originally posted by risingson77
Convenience, mostly. No developing time, connect to the PC, blah, blah, blah. The quality is getting pretty good too....although a professionally developed 35mm exposure still edges it out in the fine detail department.
Basically, they're good for snapshot takers - like me.
I'm the same - I'm taking a lot more photos with the digital camera now, and burning them to CD means the photos are stored more easily - and you can always get them printed professionally.
I'm finding I actually take a lot more in the way of 'arty' type photos - we have what was a psychiatric hospital very near to us (in the appropriately named 'Bedlam Bay') with great sandstone buildings and features. I quite like heading over there and taking black and white shots, since I don't need to pay to develop shots.
- 5,716
yeah digi is cool.
I have a 2.1 mega pixel sony camera with 3x digizoom. I have a 128mb memory stick in it which means i can take well over 200 pic. I sasve myn to a cd as well.
I can take black n' whites, sepia, negative art, etc with a touch of a button. I can take a 30 min movie (without sound of course).
if you want to out them in a photo album they can be printed out at heaps of places at a reasonable cost on to photo quality paper.
If you can afford it tho, go for optical zoom as digital looses quality as you zoom in.
there are 6 megapixel cameras out ther but they cost a fortune. my 2.1 cost $500 (AU). I wouldnt go lower than 1.3 mega pixel if you are going to buy one either.....
I have a 2.1 mega pixel sony camera with 3x digizoom. I have a 128mb memory stick in it which means i can take well over 200 pic. I sasve myn to a cd as well.
I can take black n' whites, sepia, negative art, etc with a touch of a button. I can take a 30 min movie (without sound of course).
if you want to out them in a photo album they can be printed out at heaps of places at a reasonable cost on to photo quality paper.
If you can afford it tho, go for optical zoom as digital looses quality as you zoom in.
there are 6 megapixel cameras out ther but they cost a fortune. my 2.1 cost $500 (AU). I wouldnt go lower than 1.3 mega pixel if you are going to buy one either.....
- 4,036
I actually don't own a camera yet! 
Fuji has a nice looking one for my kind of price (<$200) I might spring for after Christmas.
Fuji has a nice looking one for my kind of price (<$200) I might spring for after Christmas.
- 4,036
Yeah, that's a real benefit as well.
- 12,993
- USA! USA!
Obviously there are no digital cameras under 10 thousand bucks that can rival a good ol' 35 mm SLR. my dad just recently bought a FujiFilm S1 Pro, and it's probably one of the best digital cameras in terms of rivaling image quality of a 35 mm SLR. but he's a professional photographer, and you probably aren't. I suppose that there must be a couple digital cameras which equal, if not best 35 mm in terms of image quality, but nothing a regular consumer is going to purchase.
So, if you plan on getting large prints [bigger than 4 x 5 inch] get a 35 mm. If you want convenience, and don't want to purchase film, get a digital camera.
So, if you plan on getting large prints [bigger than 4 x 5 inch] get a 35 mm. If you want convenience, and don't want to purchase film, get a digital camera.
CudaMan
Premium
- 308
- California
My digital camera is only 2.1 megapixel and it can print an 8x10 that looks ok. I'm sure a 4x5 would come out really sharp. It's an older camera and today's models, with 5+ megapixels, have *tons* of detail capability. I'm sure awesome 8x10s would be no problem at all for those.
Mine is an Olympus C-2100 Ultra Zoom with a 10x optical stabilized zoom lens. I love it for action/racing photography... I just wish it had more resolution to work with. In addition to the ability to delete pictures that didn't come out, as was already mentioned, mine has a 'burst' mode where I can take 4-5 pictures in rapid succession at a rate of about 2.5 per second.
I haven't used a film camera since I got my digital model about 2 years ago. I'm never going back.
Here are a few albums of motorsports activities I've taken with this camera:
http://www.pbase.com/bryanh/
http://community.webshots.com/user/bryan_h
http://www.imagestation.com/members/BryanH
Yeah, photography is kindof a hobby of mine.
Mine is an Olympus C-2100 Ultra Zoom with a 10x optical stabilized zoom lens. I love it for action/racing photography... I just wish it had more resolution to work with.
In addition to the ability to delete pictures that didn't come out, as was already mentioned, mine has a 'burst' mode where I can take 4-5 pictures in rapid succession at a rate of about 2.5 per second. I haven't used a film camera since I got my digital model about 2 years ago. I'm never going back.
Here are a few albums of motorsports activities I've taken with this camera:
http://www.pbase.com/bryanh/
http://community.webshots.com/user/bryan_h
http://www.imagestation.com/members/BryanH
Yeah, photography is kindof a hobby of mine.
- 19,425
- HSV
I just received a digital camera yesterday (well, I got one wish!), and it's a lot of fun. It's a Olypus D510, with a nice 28-110mm telephoto-lens. Point, shoot, pictures's there! No need to waste film, take pics of whatever you want, no extra expenses. And editing is fun, and quick.
No waiting.
I have an "old, print-style" Canon EOS, with a telephoto lenses 35-80mm, and 80-210mm. What hurts is that good film developing is quite expensive on my budget. But it makes you take more "serious", or well thought-out pictures, you don't just point and shoot and fugetaboutit...
No waiting.
I have an "old, print-style" Canon EOS, with a telephoto lenses 35-80mm, and 80-210mm. What hurts is that good film developing is quite expensive on my budget. But it makes you take more "serious", or well thought-out pictures, you don't just point and shoot and fugetaboutit...
- 19,425
- HSV
I saw a $1000 SLR at Best Buy a few months ago, I think it was a Canon. Nikon had a $1200 one that was better. But they provided the same number of pixels, the same basic features, but you can't beat an SLR if you're a professional, that I agree!
But in the SLR world of print film cameras, there are your basic EOS and Pentax packages, and then there are your Nikon F5s (cha-ching).
It's like any other "technical art" (cars, photography, hi-fi, etc.), to be twice as good, you have to spend 10 times as much!
- 4,036
Feh. I wish spending ten times as much would get you twice as good with hi-fi. 
- 209
Actually, most 2+ megapixel cameras are limited not by the camera quality but by the printer quality. If you had an 8" dye-sub printer, you could have some decent shots from a 2.1MP camera. Any of the newer 4+ MP cameras can take excellent 8x10" images.
Not up to the detail level of traditional film, but most people won't be able to tell the difference.
- 209
Yeah, those 'Kodak image stations'. I haven't tried them, are they any good? I've been thinking of printing out pictures for some presents, is it worth it?
CudaMan
Premium
- 308
- California
I haven't tried one either. The only print I've had made from my digital was at a local "old school" camera shop (you know, megabuck SLRs, tripods, lenses galore, etc). Gave them my disk, said I wanted an 8x10, and got the print the next day. I believe the print was $7-8. And I can't recall what kind of printer they had (doh!).
