answersLogoWhite

0


Best Answer

These days everyone seems to have a digital camera. Is it really better than film? Digital cameras have many benefits over film:

  • No expensive film to buy and develop.
  • Preview your pictures instantly; delete at your leisure.
  • Upload pictures quickly to your computer for viewing.
  • Manipulate and fix pictures using photo manipulation software installed on your computer. No need to visit a photo lab or consult a professional.
  • Higher resolution on some cameras, which allows for higher quality images.
  • Ability to print pictures from your computer. No need to visit a lab for printing or development.

Yeah, and nobody gets to see the sleezy pictures you take with your girlfriend!

Devils Advocate...

No expensive film to buy and develop. -> Replace that with very expensive inks, expensive paper, photo inkjet, software, batteries and spare batteries, and a camera that costs 2 to 3 times as much as a comparable film camera, and one that will be obsolete within a year. Film "expensive"? Prices have dropped substantially to a couple bucks, or less, a roll for 35mm.

Preview your pictures instantly; delete at your leisure. -> Yes, advantage digital. However, you don't get a negative. Ever have a hard-drive crash, or a CDR become unreadable? It's not a matter of "if" it's a matter of when. Make sure you make multiple back-ups of your memories (and don't lose them, and label your CDRs...) Otherwise, rots-a-ruk. See those three years and hundreds/thousands of photos. Wave bye-byes.

Upload pictures quickly to your computer for viewing. -> You can scan film with a cheap scanner or get a photo CD from a lab and do the same thing.

Manipulate and fix pictures using photo manipulation software installed on your computer. No need to visit a photo lab or consult a professional. - "Consult a professional"? Huh? If you don't own a printer, or computer, or don't want to spend hours learning digital editing software you will still be making trips to the photo lab to make your digital prints. And isn't it nice to just drop off your film, wait a couple days, and have everything ready, already printed without sitting in from of a PC, fooling with software, or Wrestling with a printer, and watching your expensive ink get used up?

Higher resolution on some cameras, - That's just flat out false. A 35mm camera has the equivalent resolution of a 20 megapixel digital camera. The "some" cameras you must be talking about are digital 20 megapixel medium format "backs" used by pros that cost $10,000. Most consumer digital cameras - even DSLRs, have 3,4,5,6 megapixels. Less than half the resolution. That's why ONLY film can be used for big enlargements.

- which allows for higher quality images. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. All digitals have great difficulty with bright conditions and have a much lower latitude than film. It is very easy to over-expose, and you will get washed out or "blown out" highlights. They also have a lower dynamic range, and - excluding expensive DSLRs, have a wide depth of field - everything in sharp focus. Not something you /always/ want, expecially with portraits. With the digicams most consumers use, you're limited to iso 200 speed, othewise you get unacceptable digital noise (far more distracting than grain) but I /always/ use 400 speed film and not think about it.

Ability to print pictures from your computer. No need to visit a lab for printing or development.

- Again, that's not all it's cracked up to be. Inkjet printers are notoriously finiky. Hard drives containing /all/ your pictures may crash. Photo-editing software can cost hundreds of dollars, ink prices are outrageous, and photos use /a lot/ of ink. Good injet paper is also pricey.

I started using a digital camera, used it for a year, went back to film... Film is also more fun imo, and my film SLR is 15 years old. No need to charge batteries or carry spares, or for it to "boot up". It's ready to go as soon as I pick it up.

Will you still have that expensive digital camera in 15 years? Our will you have purchased 2,3,4 in that amout of time?

Digital is good for pros who shoot thousands of pics a week, where film costs DO become an issue. It's also good for camera companies, since like computers used to be, they're obsolete the minute you buy them.

Besides, film is just more fun...

How digital is better? It is worse in every aspect! 1. First of all film is much more fun. 2. Quality of 35mm film is better than some $10.000 digital. 3. Film is MUCH CHEAPER to shoot and to develop: SnapFish.com develop whole role for $3. The whole role of slide film to developed and mounted $4 with Fuji mailer.. 4. Film lasts for as long as we need and digital requires backup and how doing you know it will be readable in let say 10 years? Can you read the 8 inch diskettes now? 5. Film make you better photographer and offers HUGE variety of different films to try and to experiment: any ISO is available. 6. Film is getting better every year, but not your digital camera sensor is growing. 7. With 35mm I have a REAL WIDE ANGLE shots. 8. I don't have to keep half of pocket of batteries with me. 9. The camera from some $150 will do better than digital of $2000. 10. I can have the real high quality slide show, not that crappy and dull multimedia projection. 11. After all I can have my slides and negatives be scanned and have a "digital" if you whish. 12. I have the whole bunch of photos after vacation developed by the same SnapFish, scanned and put on CD for less than half of your ink jet paper cost.

AND AGAIN FILM IS FUN, ENDLESS FUN. Photography it is about imagination it is not what you can see in the LCD.

Agree with everything in the last two posts. Film is just more fun, and it's less expensive. I like to experiment with different lenses and different types of films. The $100 SLR I bought a decade ago, still going strong. Tried digital, it's "okay"... imo, more hype than anything. Okay if you want to post pics on a web. Get a cheap one.

Disadvantages of digital point and shoot:

1. Limited to 200 iso. 400 iso downright ugly due to noise. Grain is not as obtrusive.

2. Wide angle lenses! Love'em. Forget it with digital. 35mm best you can do without expensive, ridiculous teleconverters and "the widest" you'll get is 24mm, with a huge, heavy WCON on Raynox teleconverter hanging off your camera. I can get a 19mm, 20mm, 21mm fixed wide angles that are small.

3. Price/Quality. The average price for these things is $400 to $500 for a camera that is obsolete at purchase, with a fixed lens.

4. EVF or LCD screen... bleh. Hard to see, wash out in bright light, go dark in not so low light. Keep'em.

Why spend this kind of dough, for a fixed lens camera that limits you to iso 200, when you can get a good new SLR with a prime lens for $150, that simply takes better pics.

If you want a digital, get a cheap $100 Kodak for quick snaps to post on the web. Don't worry about megapixels. Even the cheapest has suffient for okay snap-shots.

DSLRs Good cameras, can't argue with that. But a DSLR kit will set you back $800 min. for just a body. Lenses are outrageous. Figure on parting with $1500 min for a body and a couple lenses.

- Battery eaters - "Start-up" time - Dirt on CCD nightmare - VERY expensive - Just not as much fun - Blown out highlights - Moire patterns - Durability - Fragile --- extreme temp damage --- moisture (don't get caught in the rain or humid contitions) --- static electricity --- overall build quality

Digitals require expensive software, printers, inks, and papers to make prints, and good luck with that storage media. Years from now, will it work when you want it to? Will it still be used? Can you find it?

Digitals produce "high resolution digital images". They don't look like film. That's why films are still shot with film on film cameras, even though it's less expensive to shoot on digital and transfer to film. Even TV dramas are still shot on film.

The only thing the "so called" digital revolution did was sold a lot of crappy overpriced cameras to people. Due to planned obsolence, people are buying expensive new cameras with more megapixels every couple years. Whereas, a film camera will last decades. The only people who benefited from the "digital revolution" were consumer electronics companies and commercial photographers, who spend tens of thousands of dollars on film and processing a month. For the average shooter or hobbiest, the -'s of digital outweigh the plusses.

Digital. This is progress? No thanks, I'll stick with film.

9-07-2006

I'll use digital from now on probably. If only for one's personal use and looking at, why take all the time? If you have time, and someone is buying your work, or you are having it shown in a gallery, film is nice. I have been using digital now for several months, and now I have grown so old that I now get a kick out of just looking at the 2.5 inch LCD on the back of my camera!! Film or Digital, I LOVE PHOTOGRAPHY!

One thing I didn't see mentioned is that film will degrade over time, unless kept in pristine conditions. Digital media will not. You can reprint your pictures with the same quality as the first time. Try that with film. Now given, if you are the photographic equivalent of an audiophile, go with the film by all means. But if you are just a novice photographer like myself who might like 10 of the 96 pictures you snapped, go with the digital.

A novice photographer doesn't have the experience or authority to judge this. I hope you have your files backed up.

My grandmother can use a digital camera, but that doesn't make her a photographer. Digital cameras make for lazy photographers. You don't have to take the time to get the lighting or the shot exactly right because you can just take it to Photoshop later and alter it.

They aren't.

They are different and neither one is better than the other.

Digital makes for lazy photographers is BS. Lazy photographers make for lazy photographers. On a good dSLR you can have complete manual control, but most professional (make their living with it) photographers stick with Aperture priority (Av) or Shutter Priority (TV) .. this is the same from 30 years ago: look at the auto film cameras fom 70's on, they were set like this. No pro I've ever met use 'auto' for most of their pictures, they knew what settings worked for the environment and used them. Auto (your complaint) is meant for grandma, not artist Suzie or photo-journalist Bob.

Any work done by pros on photographs (NOT images) is meant only to correct what they camera can't show, not to produce new graphics. If you can't take the picture in-camera, you're not a photographer.

The newer dSLRs are as good or better in a lot of cases than a 35mm SLR: 5-18MP, ISO that's good to 800, even 1000 with light grain, batteries that last 1500 to 2000 images, and better capture software arrives ever day.

Film is good for enlarging: 10MP or more 3/4 sensor sized images are a minimum for poster sized enlargements, 20MP and full size sensors are needed for 4 foot and bigger prints. How many people do that?

I still take pictures with film. In fact I prefer film over digital but the wait for results is less important with my landscapes than my people pictures, so I often use digital. My camera bag has 2 Nikon dSLRS, a point and shoot Canon (goes everywhere the Nikons can't go), 2 auto 35mms (Canon and Nikon), 2 manual 35mms (Canon and Nikon): The autos are for sharing with others, the digitals are for when I'm taking lots of pictures or I have a real weird environment, but for permanent and professional looks it's the manual 35s. The lenses are better, the consistency is better and they work in any condition (blazing hot, freezing cold, wet, snow, hail, dirty or... well whatever!)

Want to learn how to make photographs? Get an old 35mm film camera and practice, practice, practice. Photoshop can't fix bad photography; if you didn't catch the subject in focus and focus was on another subject, nothing in PS can fix that. That's why some people still make 100's of thousands of dollars as photographers; they can do what photoshop can't.

There are so many things involved here. The main question asked by the respondents should be: what are you using the camera for?

If you want pics to look at on your computer monitor (eBay, kijiji, pics for facebook) use any digital camera, a monitor only resolves at around 75 dpi anyway.

If you want to produce art and print it on paper at poster size or greater use film, especially if you want it in black and white.

I have been doing this for over 30 years and I use both digital and film, it depends upon the requirements of the job.

Decide what you want to use the camera for and buy accordingly.

- - - - -

I always love the "higher resolution" comment about digital cameras. Let's play.

A popular digital camera has 12 megapixels. (There are a bunch of these out there.) That will give you a file approximately 4000 pixels wide x 3000 pixels high.

If you take your pictures to a photofinisher to have them printed, their machine runs at 300 dpi...so for the highest quality out of this file, the biggest picture you can print is 10 x 13.

Now, a 10 x 13 is a nice size picture, but you look over there and see "Poster Size Prints Available Here" on a sign. And they have 24 x 36 prints available. You will need a file that's 7200 x 10800 pixels, or 74 megapixels, if you want to print that at 300 dpi. An $18,000 Better Light back for your view camera can do that, but most people would rather spend $18,000 on a new car than on a part for a camera. (You have to supply a view camera separately and they are expensive.) On the other hand, you can buy a $350 Plustek film scanner and crank out files this big from 35mm negs all day long.

And this is the most important thing to realize about digital camera files: they can never get any larger without damaging them. If you take a picture on a 12 megapixel camera, and a year later buy an 18 megapixel or a 22 megapixel camera, all the work you shot on your 12 megapixel camera will remain 12 megapixels. If you enlarge them in Photoshop, they get ugly quick. If I scan a negative this week and need it larger next week, I just need to put it back in a scanner and make it larger.

User Avatar

Wiki User

8y ago
This answer is:
User Avatar
More answers
User Avatar

Wiki User

16y ago

Digital Cameras are more efficient than film cameras in many ways. With digital cameras, you don't have to get all of you photos printed. You just print the ones you want. Another great feature is you don't have to wait to see your pictures. The screen on the back displays as soon as you take them.

You can take a lot more photos on a digital camera at a time than you can on a film camera. Film cameras average about 27 shots per roll where as digital cameras average 265 on a memory card.

This answer is:
User Avatar

User Avatar

Wiki User

16y ago

they arent

*****

This is a subjective question, meaning the opposite answer can be just as correct. At best, you can only get an opinion. My answer is, it depends on the end result and convenience required, each having pro's and con's. Digital is great, but IMHO, the average person has a small, relatively inexpensive digital camera and could never hope to obtain large (16x20 or larger) prints from such equipment where the quality can match that of a good camera and suitable film. Unless you are sending out your digital files for printing on real photographic paper, don't expect a high degree of permanence either. In addition, although digital backs are available for large format cameras (4x5 and maybe 8x10) how many people could afford them or the necessary equipment for printing?

Micron

This answer is:
User Avatar

User Avatar

Wiki User

15y ago

I'm sure that others will weigh in on this, but I can off the top of my head think of several advantages digital has over film:

* No film processing and attendant costs. * No paper prints unless I choose to have them made. Again a cost saving, and environmentally "green." * No necessity to have a CD made by the film processor so I can view and manipulate images on my computer. All I have to do is put my SD card in the card reader and presto, the pictures are on my hard drive. * No monster bag full of film: I currently use a 10 megapixel camera with a 2 GB SD card. In full 10M (2638x2736 pixels) mode, I can record 794 images on a card the size of a postage stamp. That's the equivalent of 22 rolls of 36 exposure 35 mm film. I've not yet felt the need to upgrade to a 4 or 8 GB card, or even buy a second 2 GB card. I hardly ever change the image size because there is no need, although I also have that option. * Flexible ISO: With the tiny camera I currently use, I can choose anything from ISO 64 to 3200. With film, I'm stuck with whatever I've loaded for at least 24 shots, or carry multiple bodies loaded with different ISO films. * Instant preview: I can decide the picture is no good, delete it and reshoot it; or I can shoot as many as I feel like, upload the whole batch to my computer and edit as I choose. * White balance can be changed on most cameras for the lighting available. Film is balanced either for daylight or tungsten, and the color will suffer according to variations in light. * Many cameras will let you take the same picture in color or black and white or even sepia or blue tones. You have so many options with even the most basic digital point-and-shoots that it can be bewildering. But fun!

I'm confident that others can think of more, and equally confident that a counter argument can be made for film's advantages over digital, but I was a working pro for over a quarter century and would never go back to film. I do think it helps to have the professional experience to derive the very best out of digital, and it doesn't hurt a thing to have at least PhotoShop Elements in your computer for tweaking, as I find very few raw images from the camera don't benefit from at least a little workover, but then I also worshiped at the Ansel Adams shrine when he said that the negative was the score and the print the performance.

This answer is:
User Avatar

User Avatar

Wiki User

13y ago

'Better' is a question of opinion. Many people prefer conventional cameras, but the digital camera has become pretty well universal now because the picture quality is good, you don't need to buy film, you can process the photos yourself with the right equipment, you can fire away and then delete the rubbish without spending a fortune, you can view the shot you've just taken immediately, you can store the 'negatives' easily on a computer, you can print as many as you want quite easily, you can change film speeds without having to change the film, because there's no film, and so on.

This answer is:
User Avatar

User Avatar

Wiki User

12y ago

There are a number of advantages to a digital camera. The greatest advantage is probably the delete button. You have the ability to erase any photos that don't turn out. The price is another advantage. Long-term, digital will save a lot of money. Digital cameras also tend to have a lot more function options, and you can also edit the pictures yourself on the computer before printing.

This answer is:
User Avatar

User Avatar

Wiki User

12y ago

burn them onto computers and email them to your friends and family also can change color

This answer is:
User Avatar

User Avatar

Wiki User

13y ago

the ability to view and delete photos directly from the camera

some/most can film video

some/most are smaller

digital cameras are more economical to use

This answer is:
User Avatar

User Avatar

Wiki User

12y ago

traditional cameras usually run on film while digital cameras don't need film at all

This answer is:
User Avatar

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: What is the advantage of digital cameras over film cameras?
Write your answer...
Submit
Still have questions?
magnify glass
imp
Continue Learning about Art & Architecture

Do film cameras have any benefit over digital cameras?

No. Although film cameras are nice when sending a child to camp or on a feild trip, Digital cameras are not only cheaper to develope but there are more places that you can develope them


What are advantage of a digital camera over a 35mm camera?

You don't have to pay for film. You don't have to pay for someone to develop your film. You have a nearly endless supply of shots at your disposal. But, the most important factor in my opinion is this: Convenience.


How much do underwater cameras cost?

Depends on your use and how much you want to spend..... 1. There are single-use film cameras that vary with the number of pictures you can get out of them and can be as little as $10 or so. 2. There are a handful of digital point and shoot cameras that claim they are waterproof (all have limits) starting around $100. [Use your web browser to search "waterproof digital cameras"] 3. You can buy an underwater case or "housing" for some of the more popular point and shoot and DSLRs (or film cameras) that are not waterproof themselves, and these cases or "housings" can be from +/-$175 and up, over and above the cost of the camera itself. While they also have limits they tend to be dedicated to specific camera brands and/or models. So if you're not interested in one of the "waterproof" digital point and shoots, make sure the camera brand/model you like also has a companion housing available.


What are some different kinds of cameras?

Single Use Cameras Compact Lens-Shutter Cameras Bridge Cameras Rangefinders Twin Lens Reflex Single Lens Reflex For more info, type in "types of cameras" in Google and click on the first link or just visit: library.thinkquest.org ******** video digital x-ray thermographic movie large format medium format range finder


What is the difference between a digital and a film camera?

now Danielle is writing this :) digital cameras might seem better but are they?? They might be easier to use but they are actually harder because you have to focus them while the digital one is easier because they are easier to print and taking. This is why they are better than digital cameras. I think the above answer confuses film camera with digital camera! The opinion expressed above seems to favour film camera rather than a digital one. Possibly so, but before submission the author of that statement above should have revised what he wrote!

Related questions

Do film cameras have any benefit over digital cameras?

No. Although film cameras are nice when sending a child to camp or on a feild trip, Digital cameras are not only cheaper to develope but there are more places that you can develope them


How did cameras change over the years?

== == == == One of the biggest changes is to digital photography from film == == == ==it changed the world


How was the digital camera made?

Some people thought that digital photography would offer some advantages over film-based photography, so they developed digital cameras.


Why was the digital cameras made?

Digital cameras have number of advantages over traditional film cameras. Digital cameras can display images on a screen immediately after they have been taken. Also because of the advances on memory devices it is possible to store hundreds to thousands of images on a single small device, and deleting images to free storage space. Finally, digital cameras allow integration with modern digital systems (like cell phones) and photo transfer to and from computers.


What are the disadvantages of digital cameras over film cameras?

in my opinion i would say the price of a camera today and things you have to buy to go with it is extortionate compared to a film camera and also a film camera is authentic and gives and traditional look to photo's Hope this answers your question :)


Why do Canon EOS digital camera's cost over one thousand dollars?

The Canon EOS is a professional digital SLR camera. SLR cameras offer the user the range of options in terms of lenses, flashes, etc. that a regular film camera accepts. This ability for customization combined with the way it captures the image, which is more true to a film camera than other digital cameras, account of the price.


How many models of Nikon digital cameras are there?

Nikon lists over 180 different digital camera models on their web site. As of mid-September, 2012 it looks like there are 34 current digital models, and two film models available.


Basic Features of Cheap Digital Cameras?

The prices of digital cameras range from about $100 to over $1,000. The cheapest ones are known as compact digital cameras, which have a price tag close to $100. However, these cheap digital cameras have the most basic features which are good enough for basic photography but not sufficient for advanced photographers. For example, the resolution in cheap cameras is rarely over 12 Megapixels. Additionally, there may not be HD video recording capabilities. Inexpensive point and shoot cameras may support memory cards only up to a certain storage capacity, such as 4 GB.


What kinds of cameras did they have in 1961?

The 1950s saw cameras becoming more compact so by the early 60s, the most common cameras used film to take pictures on to a 2 1/4" square negative. Kodak was the company known for low cost cameras and was probably the biggest manufacturer of cameras at the time. 35mm film was also in common use and professional single lens reflex cameras were becoming common. The 35mm SLR of the 60s in fact looked little different to the digital SLRs of today. They were certainly heavier and bulkier than modern SLRs and of course used film rather than digital sensors. Other than size and weight, the general layout of SLRs has changed little over the last 50 years.


Can I purchase a digital camera at newegg.com?

Yes, newegg.com does have digital cameras for purchase from the following brands: Nikon, Canon and Olympus. They offer both point and shoot cameras as well as digital SLRs. The prices range from around $100 to over $1800.


What is the advantage of digital cable over regular cable?

The advantage of digital cable is that you receive better picture quality and additional channels than regular cable


What is the most popular brand of SLR digital cameras?

The most popular brand of SLR digital cameras is Nikon D3100,Canon's EOS 550D,Canon's EOS 600D or Sony's DLSR-A390. They are all excellent for beginners or experts and they vary in price.