Home Forums Gear Photography Digital vs. 35mm - your thoughts?

Ok all you camera buffs give us your thoughts. I want to know if you think a professional digital camera is up to a professional grade 35mm camera. While digital gives us freedom to post here and to view photos instantly, is it still better?
I work for two photographers that use both formats but insist that 35mm can't be beat at the pro level.
What do you say?

they are 2 different art forms.

they do not comapare it that mannar.

both have their advatages and disadvantages.

oil painting will never equal watercolor and vice versa if you ask their respective advocates.

if you are a true art lover you will find splendid beauty in both.

then you have to take into account real life mathematics and marketing.

which format was superior, beta or vhs?

why beta of course, hands down.

now ask yourself which dominated the market and drove the other out of business?

pc or macintosh?

same situation.

when your film frinds have had the same amount of experience and use of a digital as they do with film ask them again <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

We had professional portraits made earlier this year and the photographer used 35mm. I asked him what he thought about digital, and he said he thinks the cameras are to the same level but the week link is the printers.

To me the biggest advantage of digital is the instant feedback and opportunity to re-shoot until you get the image you want. That makes one a much better photographer.

Personally I'll take the slightly degraded prints, at this time, tech marches on, and take the instant feedback and huge savings on film and developing.

Instead of a digital camera, I bought a film scanner a few years ago. I already had a lot of 35mm equipment.
If I were to start the hobby now, I'd likely start with digital. There aren't many film camera models left. Of course, there are even fewer medium format film cameras, but that doesn't make them inferior to digital.

I disagree.

It makes a "more efficient camera operator who can quickly fix his mistakes", but it does not make anyone a better photographer.

I do mostly digital only because it's so much cheaper and I can review shot's instently. I love my film cameras.

Nikon F5
Pentax 645 NII
Mamiya RB 67
Hasselblad X-Pan

By the way I'd bet my film cameras will out last my digital.

Yes, on image quality a couple of digital cameras have reached the 35 mm cameras. There was an article published last month relating to a Canon 16MP camera that according to the author and some professional photographers, such a camera does exactly that. However, this camera costs under $8,000 for the body only, and one needs a lot of room in the hard drive to save the huge pictures.

My older brother just retired from the United states Geological survey. He was the head of the western division including Denver and Saltlake city.
about 6 years ago they started major interest in digital vs film. The way most mapping and update mapping is done is with jet aircraft flying at 20,000 ft and using special cameras, shooting film of certain areas that are up for remapping. This is a very precise science, and sometimes requires several flights and pictures of the same areas. Companies bid for the contract to do this. the fewer times they have to fly and shoot the more money they make on the contract. Film is expensive also, so sometimes a company due to bad shots makes no money on the projects, and some companies have gone broke over the years.
My brother told me that once they got Cameras that could shoot at least 10 mega pixal that was the when they would consider using the digital.
Before he retired last year, they were in there 3 season of using exclusive Digital photo's for the US Surveys. The change over from film to Digital was a major expense, but they figured they would get that back in just a few years due to the ability to use computers and computer programs to do the mapping.
My brother suggested that each year digital is getting closer to capturing almost the entire market.
Lots of times it just comes down to economics, but it seems that the digital world is doing a good job of being able to mimic the abilities of film cameras.
just thought I would share with you what is happening in other venues of picture taking.
Max

I am the owner of the following 35mm's.....

Canon AE-1 Program
Canon EOS Rebel GII
Canon EOS Rebel Ti

and.....the....

Canon EOS 400D

I have been shooting 35mm for over 20 years and I am here to attest that fine digital SLR's are far superior to 35mm's. It is so nice to have instantaneous feedback, via the LCD, and it is nice to just shoot to one's heart's content. For instance...I have a 2GB card that will hold over 450 pics....I have the camera set on auto shoot...allowing multiple frames for each set.

I love my 400D.... and my 35mm's have just sat on the shelf since purchasing.`

If your still shooting with those bodies then they already have by a long shot! I sold my Eos 1VHS after shooting with it for 6 years and since then have only had a digital body for 3 years at the longest.

There is no 35mm film anymore at the pro level. I seriously question who you are working for. All news, magazines, weddings outdoor in other words, anything, is all being shot with digital cameras. The quality is for all practical purposes the same. And the savings on film, darkroom supplies is so incredible, that film is very much in the realm of the specialist now, just like the old bellows cameras that are still in use.

No serious pro who actually wants to earn a living is using 35mm film.

First, I loved my film cameras. I had each and everyone of them named! My hands would cradle them just right!
I have not used one of them for the past five years!
No, I have not gotten to the point of naming my digital cameras yet but it is getting close.
Since I average being in about three magazines a month and I've put my kids through school with my photography, I guess you can call that the opinion of a pro.
(If you need a film camera, CHEAP, just let me know.)

Only down side i see right now for digital is the printers I'm told will meet the need for a 5 MP camera if your camera shoots higher MP then that then your pics are still deluted to 5MP and won't look any better in a 4X6 they should look better in 8X10 simply because of the compression of megapixels but most peopole are printing everyday pics are 3X5 or 4X6 so until they up the anti on megapixels in the printers 35mm camers are just as good . This is what was explained to me in a photo shop

I love my old 35mm Nikon cameras. I have used them enough that I get/got predictable results on film most of the time. But I shot lots of film for an amateur. My digital photography has essentially been limited to snap shots up until now. I want to change that soon.

So what is the BEST printer with the highest resolution these days? I use my pocket digital for work to insert photos into reports and things. Most photos are sized to a maximum 4x6". Do you gain anything having the printing done commercially?

This past Christmas I was looking at the mega zoom point and shoot digital cameras and after handling them, I just can't buy one of those things unless it is for snap shots vs "photography/art". So, now I'm leaning toward the D80 Nikon to fulfill most of my future needs. The new D40x has a great deal of potential, but is not backward compatable with older Nikor lenses. Hence, it is probably not a likely front runner.

I shifted from looking at $400-$500 cameras to now thinking a $1000 camera will fulfil my needs. The D200 interests me, but not the price. Not interested in Cannon products.

actually the photoshop is not the best place for for finding out about high end digital camera or printer applications. the owner may be able to afford the stuff but the counter help will be hardpressed to purchase the stuff he sells, at minimum wage, so he is seldom has first hand experience.

they(camera shops) are business men that have to make money, and honestly, the high end digital business in cameras or printers requires lots of outlay for little return.

the epson 1300 or 1400 or the canon 1 9000 are all 13x19 format, high end digital printers in the 400-600 dollar range. the ink is the prohibitive part as the small carts(6 of them) are $72 a piece and the large are around $115. this is not for the "snapshot crowd"

point and shoots in the $3-450 range are now more than adequate for 99% of the shooters out there. digital slr's are geared to a very technical group and is over most folks head, just as high end film was in the old days.

if you print a lot, then by all means invest in a high end printer but you will seldom have a pile of 13x19's hanging around and most never print 4x6, but share electronically instead.

the digital picture frame that allows multiple shots to be loaded and shared in person protects and displays much as the way the old photo album used to.

its a technical world people!

as for the nikon v canon, they are both top of the line units. if you have older nikon gear it would be kind of foolish to throw it away and switch to canon.

the d50-70-80 are all great rigs. just newer versions of the same thing. all will do fine for the average joe. used prices on the d-50 and 70 are ludicrously low. cameras are like expensive chrystal, seldom has it been abused and if it has been it is obvious. this is agreat time to jump into digital as there is so much around at great prices,.

the d-40 , as you have observed, is nikon's venture into canon territory but at the cost of losing their old customers.

maybe a good move or maybe not but you are correct that it would render most of your stuff useless to you.

I don't worry about it. Most of my printing is done at 4x6 or at most 8x10, and a good ink jet does that just fine. When I've got a picture that I want a larger, high quality print of, I have it commercially done. Why should I invest in a $1000 printer that I'd only use once or twice a year?

As someone noted, the average desk top printer can't print an 8mp image any better than it can a 5 mp image, but the 8mp camera is 'better' to have if you'll be sending out an occasional image for printing on a printer that can produce that level of quality output.

For those who travel a lot by airliner, the digital has the advantage of not filling up your carry-on with film; film gets ruined by current baggage scanners.

I have an OKI color laser printer that does okay. It is not intended for printing pictures. The cost of the toner cartridges is scarey; I spent about $400 just to replace the four toner cartridges. Ooch! I didn't get it to print photos, but it does okay as long as you don't use photo grade paper. That is ink jet territory.

The real advantage one gets with hi-res cameras at the 4x6 or even higher levels is the ability to crop ones photos to taste without losing enough resolution to be noticeable.

Here's a pretty good explanation of how inkjet printers handle color and why printed photos often don't look like what you see on the monitor. PRINTERS

I have an Epson R300 that uses 6 colors. It does a very good job for a lower priced printer but ink is expensive. I've tried at least a dozen aftermarket brands but none worked without streaking.

Dick

My HP printer will print at 1400 x 2400 dpi as with most commerical printers they now have them out there that print roughly 2400 x 5400 I believe for around 500.00 If you have a basic 1400 x 2400 your 4 x 6's will look the same from an 8 mp vs 5 mp and as mentioned if you crop alot of work thats when it begins to show a difference but the human eye if both camera print the pic at 4 x 6 not cropped will not be able to tell the difference. When you begin to crop photos thats when higher megapixels make a differnece as you are essentially stretching your picture so it gets grainy looking so the more pixels ( dots of ink per inch you have the sharper the pic will look. I have a 10 MP sony and a 5 MP sony and at 8 x 10 I am hard pressed to see the difference with my HP printer that essentially prints and delutes the pics down to about 4 mp so they look the same if not cropped. The newer printers canon and epson make for about 500.00 print at roughly 6 mp so as a last note unless your cropping pics and blowing them up alot dont spend money on a 10 MP camera or high end printer yet. Prices are dropping on both and within a yr they will have basic printers for about 400.00 printing at about the level of an 6 - 8 MP camera and at 8 x10 they will look perfect. if you have a 6 mP camera.