I know very little about cameras but am really interested and hoping to learn more!
So is it generally accepted that analog cameras are better than digital cameras or vice versa? What is the most comman type used by professional photographers? Is one type of cameras better suited to certain styles? Anymore info would be appreciated! : )
So is it generally accepted that analog cameras are better than digital cameras or vice versa? What is the most comman type used by professional photographers? Is one type of cameras better suited to certain styles? Anymore info would be appreciated! : )
Una,
Nowadays it can not be said anymore that analog camera's are better then digital or vice-versa. In the beginning of digital maybe that was true but digital has evolved so much over the last couple of years that in general more and more photographers, also professionals are switching to digital. Looking to the future it seems that digital is the word .
Nowadays it can not be said anymore that analog camera's are better then digital or vice-versa. In the beginning of digital maybe that was true but digital has evolved so much over the last couple of years that in general more and more photographers, also professionals are switching to digital. Looking to the future it seems that digital is the word .
in my opinion you should use a digital one. if you're not experienced in cameras either analog or digital i asume that you aren't in photography ... or you might be a beginner at last ...
so here is the advantage of a digi-cam for every new photographer: you can do as many shots as you'd like to without having films developed and you can check your results at once without any cost ...
if you'd want to learn analog you'd have to write down every setting of your camera to realize the changes in the result ...
so here is the advantage of a digi-cam for every new photographer: you can do as many shots as you'd like to without having films developed and you can check your results at once without any cost ...
if you'd want to learn analog you'd have to write down every setting of your camera to realize the changes in the result ...
It's too simple of a question. Both digital and film have strengths and weaknesses, and it's going to depend on many variables, including the individual photographer, as to which would be "better".
I love digital when shooting weddings. I'm faster with it, I take more shots, I can experiment more, it's convenient for the customer, etc... I love film when I'm shooting landscapes. Medium and large format print film can deal with much greater contrast ranges, and they capture a stunning amount of detail.
Another photographer may have very valid reasons why they prefer film for wedding photography, and digital for landscape photography. There is no one right answer for all photographers. If I were asked what camera I would choose, if I could only use one camera for the rest of my life (the old deserted island scenario), I would choose a Rolleiflex 2.8F Planar TLR. For me it's the best all-around camera; it probably wouldn't be a popular choice with many other photographers.
I would agree that the quick feedback from digital is a great learning aid, but don't discount the discipline that film teaches. These days you can find nice, older model 35mm SLRs on the used market for very little money. It's very possible to shoot and learn with both.
I love digital when shooting weddings. I'm faster with it, I take more shots, I can experiment more, it's convenient for the customer, etc... I love film when I'm shooting landscapes. Medium and large format print film can deal with much greater contrast ranges, and they capture a stunning amount of detail.
Another photographer may have very valid reasons why they prefer film for wedding photography, and digital for landscape photography. There is no one right answer for all photographers. If I were asked what camera I would choose, if I could only use one camera for the rest of my life (the old deserted island scenario), I would choose a Rolleiflex 2.8F Planar TLR. For me it's the best all-around camera; it probably wouldn't be a popular choice with many other photographers.
I would agree that the quick feedback from digital is a great learning aid, but don't discount the discipline that film teaches. These days you can find nice, older model 35mm SLRs on the used market for very little money. It's very possible to shoot and learn with both.
hi how are you i am fine tank you i see your work its very good . i learn a lot of work but this one is very good one .if you have ather work i learn alot .i am good fotographr and artist . in the future i post my works antil at that time by .
Just my 2 cents,
I started photography with a digital. Even if I tried some of the best cameras, I had deception with the quality of final result. Yes you can always correct with a software, but I was expecting more from tose cameras.
The general opinion we can see, and I have to agree with it, is that any resolution a digital camera can produce, it will never give the quality of an analog one.
Here is the middle solution I use for a couple of week, and I like it. I take picture with a good analog camera. I have invested on a good negative scanner (Nikon coolscan). I finish my negative only, so I can do it myself, it is not expensive and I do not have to buy an enlarger. I still have the flexibility of retouching with a software, but my original pictures are by far better than my digital one. Without retouching I have almost no noise, I can scan up to 20 megapixels, at 4000dpi of resolution in 48 bits colours. I can not expect to have such image file with a digital cam.
But I agree with Matt, my solution may not be the best for you. It depends of every one, there is no "one size fit all" here.
Regards,
I started photography with a digital. Even if I tried some of the best cameras, I had deception with the quality of final result. Yes you can always correct with a software, but I was expecting more from tose cameras.
The general opinion we can see, and I have to agree with it, is that any resolution a digital camera can produce, it will never give the quality of an analog one.
Here is the middle solution I use for a couple of week, and I like it. I take picture with a good analog camera. I have invested on a good negative scanner (Nikon coolscan). I finish my negative only, so I can do it myself, it is not expensive and I do not have to buy an enlarger. I still have the flexibility of retouching with a software, but my original pictures are by far better than my digital one. Without retouching I have almost no noise, I can scan up to 20 megapixels, at 4000dpi of resolution in 48 bits colours. I can not expect to have such image file with a digital cam.
But I agree with Matt, my solution may not be the best for you. It depends of every one, there is no "one size fit all" here.
Regards,
Sorry, my english is very bad.
I'm a lover of analogic photography. I have a Nikon FM2.
One year ago I bought a Nikon D 70 and I am very contented with the results.
Although I am single a fan, I take to many years doing photos.
Looking to the future I think that digital is the best option.
Greetings
Manuel
I'm a lover of analogic photography. I have a Nikon FM2.
One year ago I bought a Nikon D 70 and I am very contented with the results.
Although I am single a fan, I take to many years doing photos.
Looking to the future I think that digital is the best option.
Greetings
Manuel
Due to the (understandable) rise of digital, the cost of used analogue cameras has collapsed.
You can now buy a perfect s/hand Nikon F5 for the price of the most basic DSLR.
You'd have to spend around $4000 to buy a DSLR as well made as an F5, that provided anything like equivalent image quality.
You can buy an awful lot of film and pay for an awful lot of prints out of $4000.
You can now buy a perfect s/hand Nikon F5 for the price of the most basic DSLR.
You'd have to spend around $4000 to buy a DSLR as well made as an F5, that provided anything like equivalent image quality.
You can buy an awful lot of film and pay for an awful lot of prints out of $4000.
Price is also my main issue. Film or memory card, it's just the storage medium with, nowadays, a comparable quality level. If you like to postprocess your (analog) pics, a lab will scan and burn on CD together with the film processing at little added cost. Which makes your analog camera almost digital.
What worries me most at this moment (when I decide to buy second hand Canon FD lenses because they are so cheap) is how long 35mm film will still be available. If Kodak and Fuji pull the plug it's over and my investment goes down the drain. Does anyone have any info on that?
For me the difference between analog and digital photography is mainly in the way I use my camera, not the medium - film or chip. With a digital camera I would probably still do "analog" photography which means for me fiddle around with incedent light meters and correction filters and manual focussing and all that before I take the shot.
What worries me most at this moment (when I decide to buy second hand Canon FD lenses because they are so cheap) is how long 35mm film will still be available. If Kodak and Fuji pull the plug it's over and my investment goes down the drain. Does anyone have any info on that?
For me the difference between analog and digital photography is mainly in the way I use my camera, not the medium - film or chip. With a digital camera I would probably still do "analog" photography which means for me fiddle around with incedent light meters and correction filters and manual focussing and all that before I take the shot.
NIKON just announced they are going all digital with the exception of just two cameras. They also said they expect their competitors to do the same.
Digital it has to be,of course a computer and printer and at least you can do your prints just how you like them instead of relying on what you get from a shop !i may use my film camera as i have a 17-40 mm lens and i can get full advantage of using the 17 mm on the film camera !so they can still be of use now and again,but digital is the best thing that has come out for photographers you cant go wrong !
If you have no interest in or are not adept at using a computer, stay with analog. The biggest draw back of analog is at some point you will need to digitize the images (to post, correct or enhance) and if you don't have a really good slide/film scanner then all the benefits of analog are lost.
Personally, I love digital, but a medium format film camera is hard to beat.
Happy Hunting,
Patrick
Personally, I love digital, but a medium format film camera is hard to beat.
Happy Hunting,
Patrick
No matter if you choose analog or digital a knowledge of the technical aspects of photography is essential. Do not get too caught up in what equipment is best. Use what you feel happy with and learn how to use it to produce the results you want.
There are some benefits of both system.
In general, analog film is resolution-wise still much better than (billable) sensor chips. In the not so far future (or maybe even today) it might be possible for CCD-sensors to beat analog-film resolution-wise, but such tiny sensors-elements would for sure produce a lot of noise. If you want to have a maximum resoluton AND a good signal/noise ratio, analog film is the best choice.
On the other hand, you need to have really good (and really expensive) lenses (and perfect shooting conditions) to be able to fully use the possible resolution. And if your photo is finally developped on a 4x6''-print or even in A4-or A3-format-print, you give away the potential super-resolution anyway...
What is more relevant for 'normal' photograpy is that analog film usually has a better dynamic range than electronic sensors. So if one works often with very strong or extreme contrasts, analog film may ¨be the better choice. For static objects, the dynamic range of digital photos can be extended with the DRI-method, but several shots of the same scene must be taken.
Another advantage of analog-photography is that you are (at least almost) independent of electricity when taking the picture. Especially in a cold environment, on longer trips in the wildness, when doing very long time exposures etc. the permanent need of electrical power can be a serious problem.
Next, an analog film is (usually) cheap, therefore you can even by 'one way'-cameras. For some strange experiments or in a very harsh environment, you don't have to risk a few-hundred-dollar sensor when you work with film.
Last but not least, with an analog film, dust is almost no problem. at least it's no permanent problem which affects many pictures.
But the digital photograpy has its benefits as well and some of them are really amazing:
A Digicam makes it possible to develop your pictures comleteley without a dark-chamber, without handling with (or buying) chemicals, simply with a complete 'digital dark-chamber' on your desk! This is also an important point which makes digital photography interesting for professionals. It simply saves a lot of time (and therefore money) if a picture can be processed immediateley after the shoot - or sent by email, published in the web or printed out directly in a minute.
A digital sensor allows you to change the sensitivity anytime, if you want, even from shoot to shoot. With an anlog-cam you have to change the film (or wear a couple of bodys, each loaded with a film of different sensitivity...
When doing long-term exposures, a digital sensor keeps its sensitivity over the whole exposure - an analog film looses sensitivity with time (but not with the same rate foe all colors) which leads to color-shifting and which makes it more difficult to calculate or guess the correct exposure time.
But what really brought a big change in photography is the possibility to immediateley check - at least roughly - the picture after it has been taken. It's simply a joyful and effective way to learn about photograpy if you get immediate feedback, if you directly see the effect of a change in the settings - even as a histogram.
My conclusion is, that analog film is usally technically better than digital photography - but to really get the overhead over digital sensors out of an analog film, the necessary time and effort is - compared to the development of a purly digital picture - often inadequate.
One last word: Nothing (expect money maybe) speaks against buying a digital camera AND an analog body. Good analog bodies are in the meantime very cheap - and in an emergency case, an analog body can of course act as a backup cam.
Post Edited (0:27h)
In general, analog film is resolution-wise still much better than (billable) sensor chips. In the not so far future (or maybe even today) it might be possible for CCD-sensors to beat analog-film resolution-wise, but such tiny sensors-elements would for sure produce a lot of noise. If you want to have a maximum resoluton AND a good signal/noise ratio, analog film is the best choice.
On the other hand, you need to have really good (and really expensive) lenses (and perfect shooting conditions) to be able to fully use the possible resolution. And if your photo is finally developped on a 4x6''-print or even in A4-or A3-format-print, you give away the potential super-resolution anyway...
What is more relevant for 'normal' photograpy is that analog film usually has a better dynamic range than electronic sensors. So if one works often with very strong or extreme contrasts, analog film may ¨be the better choice. For static objects, the dynamic range of digital photos can be extended with the DRI-method, but several shots of the same scene must be taken.
Another advantage of analog-photography is that you are (at least almost) independent of electricity when taking the picture. Especially in a cold environment, on longer trips in the wildness, when doing very long time exposures etc. the permanent need of electrical power can be a serious problem.
Next, an analog film is (usually) cheap, therefore you can even by 'one way'-cameras. For some strange experiments or in a very harsh environment, you don't have to risk a few-hundred-dollar sensor when you work with film.
Last but not least, with an analog film, dust is almost no problem. at least it's no permanent problem which affects many pictures.
But the digital photograpy has its benefits as well and some of them are really amazing:
A Digicam makes it possible to develop your pictures comleteley without a dark-chamber, without handling with (or buying) chemicals, simply with a complete 'digital dark-chamber' on your desk! This is also an important point which makes digital photography interesting for professionals. It simply saves a lot of time (and therefore money) if a picture can be processed immediateley after the shoot - or sent by email, published in the web or printed out directly in a minute.
A digital sensor allows you to change the sensitivity anytime, if you want, even from shoot to shoot. With an anlog-cam you have to change the film (or wear a couple of bodys, each loaded with a film of different sensitivity...
When doing long-term exposures, a digital sensor keeps its sensitivity over the whole exposure - an analog film looses sensitivity with time (but not with the same rate foe all colors) which leads to color-shifting and which makes it more difficult to calculate or guess the correct exposure time.
But what really brought a big change in photography is the possibility to immediateley check - at least roughly - the picture after it has been taken. It's simply a joyful and effective way to learn about photograpy if you get immediate feedback, if you directly see the effect of a change in the settings - even as a histogram.
My conclusion is, that analog film is usally technically better than digital photography - but to really get the overhead over digital sensors out of an analog film, the necessary time and effort is - compared to the development of a purly digital picture - often inadequate.
One last word: Nothing (expect money maybe) speaks against buying a digital camera AND an analog body. Good analog bodies are in the meantime very cheap - and in an emergency case, an analog body can of course act as a backup cam.
Post Edited (0:27h)
my experience is that digital is the way of the future but the future is not here yet.......two years ten years but not yet. one reason.black and white,can you gain the quality of film black and white with digital?perhapes but only with a lot of work in photoshop.yes you say but all that work in the darkroom?yes but the darkroom work has still got it all over the photoshop in end result and quality.
jack.
jack.