Digital Camera Vs the Film Roll Camera..??
By chennai_b07
@chennai_b07 (640)
India
September 30, 2008 11:03am CST
I have a Camera which can be load the Film Roll and take the photo graph, the Roll having 36 Films which can give me the maximum of 36 numbers of photos.
In this i have to spend the money for the Film roll, Cleaning the Film Roll, and to print the Good Film outputs.
But my friends has the Digital Cameras, they can take the Photos as just like that, immediatley they can transfer the same to the system, and can forwarded to their friends through mail, and also if they need they can take a print it from the system itself, or if anybody need it, they can give the same through the CD by copy the photos.
I think the Digital camara have more clarity than the Film roll still camera. and also in my Film Still Camera, if i have taken any wrong photo or any of the photo which has not come as i required the said film is waste, but as for as the Digital Camera is concern, they can check the same in the screen, if anything wrong, they can take the another snap, without any additional lost of the film or something..
So, what is your opinion about the Still Camera and the Digital Camera.. which one do you prefer..??
Post your comments please..
Have a good day.
3 responses
@Davidarich (985)
• Australia
7 Oct 08
The very best digital cameras match or outperform their older film forebears, and so do the mid-range cameras.
The really cheap digital cameras have more features than film cameras in the same class, but until you get up to the 3 megapixel level, the film cameras provide better images.
The cameras built into phones have a lot of great features, including video capture, but their sensors are so small they are not up to the standard of basic film cameras when you see the printed picture, even if it is only a post-card sized print.
With anything else, film has already fallen behind the digital camera if you compare like with like: that is to say, a point-and-shoot film camera doesn't match a digital p&s for features (built-in macro, zoom range, variable ISO, number of images/roll length, live view etc.) but neither one can keep up with an SLR. But film SLRs are less capable than Digital SLRs and the same is true for medium format cameras.
A year ago I might not have been quite so certain, but there can longer be any real doubt...digital rules!
@kiranv06 (26)
• India
4 Oct 08
You get a decent film camera for 1000-2000 rupees while a good digital camera costs more than 8000...
but I'm sure it willpay you back..because there are a variety of handy features in the digital cameras...for instance, the shutter speed of even an entry level digital camera is higher than a film camera so that you can easily take motion pictures while on the go, from a bus or train, or while walking while you require some skill to hold the film camera to take good shake-proof pictures...
also, there is no comparison between the no.of pictures you can take with a digital camera and film camera...
so I hope digital cameras are superior to film camera in every aspect....
@Zephier (73)
• United States
1 Oct 08
They both have their strengths and weaknesses. And if i had the money i'd like to have a film SLR and a digital SLR. With the film camera i suppose you would have much more control over the creation of your photos compared to digital versions. Most of the time you have better quality and you also have a physical copy of a photo of course without any use of an electronic machine at a store.
The ease of digital photos is something i prefer though since i email photos to family and post photos online all the time. Even my avatar is one of my digital photos :)
