I know it does not include us but. Just in case. The 35mm is the god! It's what made cameras click originally. Really, I wish I had a better camera with more control. The stuff you can do. Digital is nice because of instant gratification. But unless you are using a high end camera. Digital does NOT cut it. There's not enough control. Yes one can adjust things in photo programs. But the key to a good picture ( and I think everyone will agree with me on this ) is to have a good picture to start with. Bsteph

i should add just to be fair. that the digital picture and the 35mm are from different locations. But it does not change the fact that there are practically NO city lights in the digital picture and there are plenty in the 35mm. Bsteph

well to put more doubt out of it look a this...and tell me what whas the source....

Bsteph - at the moment I totally agree with you. Even a cheap 10 automatic camera can produce a better photo than a 500 digital....no contest. The only things I am working on is the fact that (a) instant gratification is good. I'm an impatient sod at the best of times, and a digital has increased my speed of learning because I can see where I'm going wrong without having to wait for a whole film to be developed before I find out I'm making mistakes. (b) If someone brought out a 35mm where a lifetime of film & developing is included F.O.C. then the future of digital has problems! This is the strongest point for me, as my 200 digi has ALREADY paid for itself in the equivalent cost for the number of photo's I have took, plus I'm selling it soon for not much less than that.... (c) The cheapest new car you can buy today is 100% better than the Rolls Royce of automotive youth - faster, more reliable and more efficient ...... digital technology is VERY young - compare recent discussions re costs of processing etc 50 years ago - in 50 years time what will digital be like?!? Let's re-start this thread in as little as 5 years time.... but until then, you win, bud!!!!! (",) Mike.

On my moniter it looks like its got a pixel problem. so I'll take a guess and say digital. My point is not that you can't take a good picture with a digital camera. it's just that you can almost always take better pictures with a 35mm. I'm going to ignore the other extreme where one is trying to take poor pictures. One can always do that. For further comparison. Digital or 35mm. Bsteph

yes it is Alpha but never thougth that if whas not seen a thing the cam whas 16 sec exposure. they did a hell of improvement since 2 year

ok digital or 35 mm I think the quality of the digital shots can vary greatly depending on the camera. I would probably say at this point in time you can still get a better shot with 35 mm but I don't think it will take 5 years before digital catchs up. Also if I were to shoot as many shots with 35 mm as I do digital I would literally be poor. According to the counter on my camera I have shot over 900 pictures in the last month and a half, imagine the processing costs alone never mind the film.

One thing I like about using an SLR and film is that I can't take unlimited amounts of pictures, I have to do my best to get it right. Being the lazy slob I am, I don't think I'd really bother to learn very much about photography if I had a digicam, I'd just keep shooting till I got exactly what I wanted. With film I can't allow myself to take more than 2-3 pictures of each subject because of the cost, and because of this I've learnt a lot more than I ever did with a digital. Not that I'm saying that this is the case for everybody, I'd think the opposite. For me it is also a sentimental thing. My dad (who made me interested in photography in the first place) has always used an old 35mm TopCon. I always think of him, mumbling about f-stops and shadows, when I take photos. When I was younger I really admired his skill, and I thought I'd never understand anything about f-stops and ASA and shutter speed etc. (JordyArt, don't worry, it's not as hard as it seems!) So learning and understanding the basics of my SLR has given me a sense of satisfaction. The instant gratification thing is less important to me, half the fun is waiting for the results. And besides I just love being in total control of what I'm doing.. Now..give me a totally manual digital camera and I'll be happy..or a digital back for an SLR...that'd be perfect :P

I am going to throw a spanner in the works here and say, IMHO, that using a good quality digital camera (not a top of the range one) and a good printer, will produce a top quality print compared with a 35mm one. If it doesn't then you are doing something wrong. I use a Nikon E950 and I print most of my stuff at 15"x12" on an Epson 1270 A3 printer. Having spent 30 odd years juggling with F stops, depth of field ranges and resiprosity failure allowances, I can tell you it's a relief now just to be concentrating on composition. You earn no extra Brownie points just because you decide to take the difficult route. And what's wrong with taking lots of shots of the same subject just to make sure that you have the right one? Having observed professionals at work, it's not unusual (or was that Tom Jones? for them to shoot twenty or thirty ROLLS to be sure that they have everything covered. When I WAS shooting on film I often took lots of framing shots if I was in a one-off situation and knew that I couldn't do a re-take later on.

I agree with you Alpha. The shot I posted was taken with a 2 year old digital camera. And as you know with digital anything two years old is a antique(spelling?)The point I was trying to make is that you can not knock one or the other for specfic features as if your pockets are deep enough you can get either to do the job. I think that it is a matter of what you need the camera to do or what you are doing with it that would determine which one to use. I personally have both and use both but it is my digital that I use the most as I can take a shot then try changing the setting and take the shot again. This allows me to see the difference the different settings make right away. I personally have learned more about fstops and shutter speeds from my digital because I can play around with the settings and not worry about the cost. I guess it will allways be a debate just like when the point and shoot 35 mm came out,which was better a slr or point an shoot. It all boils down to what you want the camera to do.

I'll be honest, when I go on about f-stops etc, I'm sort of pulling peoples legs a bit. I know if I bother to actually look at my slr or read a decent book on them I'll pick it up pretty quick - I just seem to have a knack like that. Even with a digital I only take 1 or 2 pics of a subject - as we've mentioned in a previous thread, even digital cameras have memory limitations. Like my original comment says, I'm too impatient to wait and too skint to spend loads on preocessing! As my final thought (Jerry Springer Style!) even with the 1.3 million pixel digi I use and the 2800 dpi printer, using a good quality paper on a high quality print setting actually gives pretty good results - no, nowhere as crisp as film + paper, but even a 6 million pixel camera will resolve that problem to a great extent. When I show my pictures at work (there's actually quite an interest now!) no-one notices the quality of the picture - they're all looking at the subject. I guess knowledge of a subject makes you TOO critical of your own work at times! Thanx. (",)

The other point is if you are not using manual in your digital, its unlikely taking 2-10 photos of the same thing will make too much difference because the settings will be the same each time (unless the light source changes)--more on this later. That's what I love about my new digicam--I can experiment a bit with the f stops, shutterspeeds, etc.--and not send myself to the poor house LOL. I've used a professional photographer (same one) for years to shoot my textile art jury slides. Textiles are difficult to take to begin with (they absorb light dramatically--especially in saturated hues), but Gary spends time taking Polaroids for lighting, exposure, etc.--then he brackets his shots--so sometimes I get 4-5 slides of the same shot. There is always a fair amount of difference in the shots and he and I choose the best one. He couldn't do this w/o different f stop settings (particularly). Today I tried an experiment (remember my Canon G1 is only 2 weeks old). I had tried to take pics of yellow water lilies in our small pond with my Kodak DC280 before. I never ever could get the yellow right (and today it was high noon with strong southern sun)--in fact they were always white--at best. Once I post worked them by darkening the surround and 'painting' the lilies yellow, but it still was far from good. The Kodak, when it came out, was the first 2 MP that Kodak had made but was still, even with 'some' options, basically a point and shoot. I set up the same shot on tripods, using the zoom on both. The G1 images are right on, color wise, perfectly in focus--what I would expect to get with my SLR. I used manual and experimented with various settings. I also tried aperture priority and the pictures did not suit me aesthetically--altho' they were way better than the Kodak's. This is not to belittle P&S's at all--I enjoyed and loved using my Kodak--it got me interested in photography again--even got my photo job with it by a fair amount of post processing. If you are able to photograph what you want with the camera--to me that's the issue. I could not get a good photo of this particular subject--so I avoided shooting it--simple as that. Now I can shoot it and get a wonderful pic if I choose. I just have more options. To compare a P&S with a higher end digicam with manual controls--or to compare that with the digi SLR's---just isn't right. Its apples and oranges, IMO. I think whatever anyone posts here has merit in one way or another--and I don't care what kind of camera they used to take it--or whether they post processed it or not. I sort of find the SLR vs. the digicam a bit like the PC vs. Mac things LOL. No offense meant to anyone, BTW. Diane

I don't think either camera type is better. It's up to what suits the individual. I prefer using an SLR because I feel I learn more that way. I don't think there's anything wrong with using lots of film on the same subject, but I prefer to only use a few frames because of the cost of processing. When I eventually switch to a digital I'll feel more confident that I actually know what I'm doing. But what matters is the result...not necessarily the process of getting there.