When will you switch to digital photography?

[Deja Q]

Poll question: When will you switch to digital photography?

I had come back from a vacation. I'd spent $30 on film and $65 on developing it.

99% of the cat pictures are worthless (to me) because I had to use the flash (low light) and flash combined with cat eyes makes for a frightning combination... but I digress, if I was any good I'd have found a way to not use the flash and still get great pics. (one cat had psycho red eyes and the other had yellow eyes - which looks weird, but isn't psycho...)

Most of the other pics came out very nice, though at 400 ISO there's some grain (time to digitize and treat with Neat Image Pro 2.5 to remove the grain...). I'll have the best pics on my website soon...

I wanted to use my digital camera up there except its lens doesn't zoom very far and I needed to do close-up work. So I used my film SLR camera instead.

I prefer digital because I can see what I'm getting. No guesswork in terms of exposure settings and I can fine tune where even the smartest camera's sensors might not give the best response.

Digital looks 'sharper' as well, even though 35mm film is said to be the equivalent of 10 megapixels. (Advantix film is about 2.5MP because even a standard panoramic image (4x10") looks grainy, even with 200 ISO film...)

Digital SLR cameras, good ones, still cost over $1500. Canon has a Digital Rebel model for $1000, but its f-stop is limited to 5.6 - pathetic.

When will you go digital?

[THUNDER HANDS]

1. I have a small cheap one

That I rarely use. If I ever get into photography again I doubt I'll use digital. Just something about film that I really like.

[HEyHEY]

2. Who's the other film purist?

I think film gets better shots. But I have to use digital for work a lot of thetime.

[Kolesar]

3. I use a 35mm focal length point-and-shoot and I love it

I bought it for backpacking 6 years ago and have no plans to replace it. It weighs a scant 6.5 ounces, and it has a lens that blows away my vintage Minolta (which I gave away). Since I shoot mostly landscapes, the fixed wide focal length is only a slight compromise. You can buy that Yashica T4 Super for ~$150.00 plus shipping.

I love my prints. I have them developed in 5" x 7" by Mystic Color Labs. I am afraid that bubblejet prints will fade, or if I burn CD roms they will have premature failure. So, I could say I am not shopping for a digital camera.

[madrchsod]

4. unless you spend alot of money

a good film camera is still the best.i`m sticking to 35mm till the price comes way,way down and the quality goes up.

[ET Awful]

5. I have a top of the line Minolta Dimage A1

Basically the best you can get without going SLR :). I love this thing (just got it a little over a week ago).

[LuLu550]

6. I've using digital at work for a couple years

But I'm still sticking with film for home. Really good digital cameras are still too expensive and I've heard the pictures fade unless you use high quality film...which makes it cost as much as film.

[jonoboy]

7. film better but digital is sooo cool

[Bundbuster]

8. When their print quality equals film

When someone shows me an 8 x 12 digital print with the same resolution/sharpness/color of film, I'd go digital if affordable. As a smalltime professional photographer I see major Pros like AP photographers who MUST use digital - they love the convenience and ability to instantly see their results (especially with sports), but admit that the final quality is still short of film. BTW, their top-line camera bodies alone cost about $5000.

[woofless]

9. When they pry my Nikon

from my cold, dead hands.

[MercutioATC]

10. Voted for #4, but not quite accurate...I have a Canon D30 and

a 28-135 IS zoom as well as a 100-400L IS zoom (more money in lenses than in the body). I'm VERY happy with it and I've gotten great 8x10's and very respectable 13x19's from it. For convenience, stick with a digital point-and-shoot with the best optical zoom you can afford. If you're into photography, go with a digital SLR.

The best part is that you can feel comfortable taking 400-600 shots of an event...you simply keep the good shots and delete the bad...no processing cost. This is also why digital is such a great tool for learning about photography...you get instant feedback and feel comfortable taking shots you'd never try if you had to pay for every exposure.

[OldSoldier]

11. I can't ever go digital

I use an old Mamiya RB67, which makes transparencies that have five times the surface area of a 35mm transparency. I can get a digital back for it, but I have two choices: the "single shot" kind you can use with flash, or the "scanning" kind that has better quality but has to be locked to a tripod and lit with quartz.

And forget street photography with a medium format digital back, since all of them have to be tethered to a Mac.

Also add in the cost of a new body and new lenses: the digital backs work on Mamiya RZ but not Mamiya RB.

Digital backs for Mamiyas cost $30,000 easy, plus $1500 for a decent PowerBook. Throw in $3000 for a new camera. I can buy a lot of Velvia, slide mounts and chemistry for $34,500.

[DS1]

12. well you're just a little beyond the prosumer grade

with your Med and High format devices.

[jmowreader]

14. And I'm looking for a used scanner, to boot

Anyone know where I can get a good price on a Crosfield 636 or a Screen 737 drum scanner?

The first place I did prepress at had a 737. They tore out a wall to get it in the building. A 636 is smaller, but not by much.

[MercutioATC]

13. Photography and art are occasionally different things...

I love the convenience of digital, but there are artistic considerations. Just like people didn't stop painting when photography came along, digital might replace film in some cases but film will always be a viable artistic medium.