Digital cameras & 35mm

[csxt30]

Today I really got shot down when I was telling this guy at work about how great all the guys pictures are here on the forum. I was trying to tell him all the features Dave mentions his camera has. Now I'm not very good at taking pics. but then he had to go & say " Well, you know there' no digital camera that can take any pics. as good as a 35mm" ! Huh! I said, then I just gave up. Wonder if you can verify that or tell me something? Thanks everyone, John

[wrmcclellan]

John, that is a tough one.

In theory he is correct, particularly if you want to blow up a photo. Note that each digital camera comes with a recommendation on the largest print blowup it can support (i.e. 3.2 MP = 8x10 max - excellent for 4 x 6).

However, if he were secretly given a 4 x 6 print from my new Canon A400 (which is only 3.2 MP) I seriously doubt he would be able to tell it is not a 35 mm photo. When I first saw this type of print, I could not either. Only a hard core 35 mm film print and paper expert would be able to tell.

Regards,
Roy

[Jim Duda]

John - like Roy stated, 35mm will still enlarge and print a little better @ 8 X 10 and larger sizes, although some high end 10+ megapixel digital cameras would give them a serious challenge.

But for sending images via e-mail and posting to forums, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference because our computer monitors are still limited to relatively poor resolution. Then take into consideration the hassle of having to scan those 35 mm prints, convert them to the .jpg (most used) format and the cost of the film and developing, and the required scanner, the digitals definitely have their place...especially here!

Bottom line: for LARGE PRINTS, 35mm still leads...but the gap is closing rapidly. For e-mail and forum postings, the digitals win, hands down. A few years from now, a 10 megapixel camera will cost what the 3 MP do now.

For now, there is a place for both...

[Anonymous]

35mm can blow up to 20x24 if you use an iso of 100 or less & is photographed &
printed manually. my minolta x-700 a macro lens(50mm) & a roll of fuji reala works
great on O, S, On23, HO, & even N scale.

[csxt30]

Oh, thanks so much Roy & Jim & Mac4884!! I know down the road I will need a new camera, & I sure do enjoy all the info that has been coming on here lately. Also, thanks in advance if some more info comes!! John

[Roger Bielen]

I use a 35mm for landscapes when on vacation and on the last vacation we also had a digital 3.2 mp. I have no problem getting a 14" X 10" print from the 35mm but when blowing up a digital to that size it was pretty blurry, even with my glasses on. As Roy and Jim mention unless you get the big bucks digital your better off with the 35mm. With the cost of a body to replace my 35mm, so I can use my lens, at $999 it'll be awhile before I move over to a quality digital. Heck thats a pretty good engine or quite a few cars for the EL&M Ry.

A friend of mine, heavy into photographing humming birds, paid over $600 for his digital.

[FJ and G]

John,

CTT is accepting photographs from digital cameras, as is OGR. The resolution you can get with at least a 4Megapixel camera is enough to do the trick; mine cost $199. Nikon coolpix.

And, you can print out pictures on film paper up to 5X7 that look indistinguishable from film shots; more expensive cameras with greater Megapixels naturally can print out larger sizes.

I've been taking 30 pictures a day each way to work on the train and having a ball that I never could have with a film camera.

And don't listen to those who say digitals are just good for the web.

If you want a poster sized photo, then do go with a film camera using very low speed slide film. So, do keep your film camera for that 1/2 of 1% of the time you need it.

[csxt30]

Roger: Thanks! I didn't know they cost that much & I'm saving for an engine too! I just want to use it mainly on the forum here. Dave: thanks too! That looks like more my type camera, or price range. This may set me off to do some picture taking this summer & experiments with the different settings youv'e mentioned lately! Boy, I sure do like this forum!!! Thanks, John

[Anonymous]

Check out this link for all you may ever want to know on digital versas film from a professional that uses both. He has a great photography website.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm

One tid bit

"Even today your dad's 20 year old Canon AE-1 can make technically better images than any digital camera. The Canon AE-1 is about the same as a 20 megapixel camera. The AE-1 Program is about the same as a 25 megapixel camera, presuming you are using Canon brand lenses."

But read it as digital has lots of advantages and Ken Rockwell uses both and there is a need for both that he explains.

Charlie

[FJ and G]

Charlie,

I'd go even one step further and not only agree that both are indespensible, but both go together. For instance, so you don't waste film, you can preview a photo using digital and if you like what you see, you can take the shot with your film camera.

I took 36 digital photos of trains on the way to work this morning! And, that's an average morning. Going home, I'll likely take several dozen more. My digital camera is, as we speak, attached to my belt with an extra set of rechargeable batteries.

And, at home, i've got an AE-1, A-1 and F-1. The F-1 is so rugged that it will work without any batteries or electronics, if necessary. I bought it in Hong Kong and lugged it all over the world.

[Jim Duda]

Dave - If I had an F-1, I'd lug that around just to impress the pros (but use the Coolpix for all those grab shots.) Always wanted one and a Leica M3...never got either. The Argus C3 was about all I could afford.
Nikon - Leica were the Lionels...Argus was the MarX .

Now, back to trains...