What are the advantages of digital?

[Tapeman]

I've been shooting with a Canon 1v HS and a digicam. I like the ability to post & e-mail images, but I am still not convinced that if I spend 5 or 6 grand on a 1d mkII & memory & software, I'll get better images.

I spend about $200.00 a month on film & processing.

I like going out & taking photos. I am not sure I will like spending time post prossesing images from digital capture of what I can do now with film.

To me one of the biggest advantages of digital is being able to change ISO without changing film.

I guess that what I am looking for here is encouragement to spend lots of money. (Which I think is the primary function of this forum.)

I own some good glass so I know eventually I will buy a DSLR

[Longwatcher]

With the exception of the 1Ds or Kodak SLR/C at ISO 80, you are not going to get pictures better then film, however, you can get color PRINTS as good as you get on film up to 16x24 with a 10D/300D so I know this will be higher with 1DM2.

What you do get with digital is cheaper processing costs after the initial investment. Not counting the computer, monitor and software. the payback on your investment of a 1DM2 assuming you now shoot $200 in film per month is about 24 months (give or take a few). Given accessories, computer, software and the like, it will probably take 36 months to make a profit from going digital versus film. After that, until you have to replace the camera your month costs will probably be about $5-10 for CD/DVD media to store the equivilant pictures on.

Also take into account film will be harder and harder to find and your choices will become more limited in the future. It probably will not dissapear completely, but the price will most likely go up.

The above is your investment advantage of digital. If you shoot even more then it would pay off even faster, which is why a lot of professionals are switching.

Now for the fun reasons to get a digital.
- Instant feedback - you can see if there is a major problem with the shot you just took.
- Because there is no cost you wil probably take more pictures then before (although some feel this is not necessarily an advanatage :)
- You have mentioned the ISO advantage.

A note on post processing. You can always have the software basically process the images in a batch like function (with the usual results of batch processing), which means it will probably take less time then going down to the lab to drop off and then pickup the film. However, the fun part of digital is all of the things you could do in a darkroom, you can now do with Photoshop with no strong toxic chemical stench to follow you out of the darkroom. Plus you can do even more artistic things thin were easily possible with an enlarger/chemicals. Thus giving you more flexibility with you final works of art.

Truth in advertising time:
The disadvantages are:
- B+W film is still better then color digital converted to B+W, but it is getting closer. It is 3 parts sensor and 1 part software, the software can still be improved.
- With the exception of the 2 FF cameras listed above, there is a FOV crop factor caused by a sensor that is smaller then the film the lenses were designed for, so if you like taking wide-angle shots this can be a problem, but it is nice on the telephoto end (without going into long technical discussion)
So if you like wide angle you either need to get 1Ds or stick with film
if you like B+W then you may still want to stick with film
Otherwise Digital has gotten far superior to film overall.

Just my opinion and experience,

[sGu]

well, photography on traditional film cameras is pretty much the same with digital ones, same techniques, same way it operates, to me there are couple of advantages for digital:

1> you'll be able to see your captures instantly, so you can adjust camera settings and composition accordingly.
2> change ISO speed without changing films(as you mentioned)
3> save you money one film and processing
4> very flexible when it comes to post processing, you can adjust or apply minor tweaks if you are not happy with certain things.

i think that's about what i can think of ... :roll:

with a digital SLR, you can still go out and take pictures, it doesn't necessarily mean you'll have to sit in front of your monitor spend endless hours doing post processing. You said you shoot film at the moment, going digital isn't much difference, just think you are using a different medium, that's all, the essential part of photography hasn't changed. So called post processing is just minor changes if you're not happy with, let's say hue, satuation, brightness etc.

[MarkH]

You spend the cost of a Canon 1D MkII every 2 years for film, changing to digital is a no-brainer IMO.

With digital:

For tricky lighting or flash shots you can take a picture, check the histogram, take another picture, check the histogram again. Result: Perfect exposure settings.

In many situations it is hard to be sure you captured the action, with the MkII you could fire off 40 shots in 5 seconds and be more likely to catch the action - no cost other than the shots you print. (I'm thinking of things like a small bird or animal doing something)

In bad light you can shoot at ISO 1600, it's amazing how good the results can be. I have shot at 1600 and then the sun came out, so I switched to ISO 400 for a while.

[blinking8s]

well, i couldnt afford to learn photography with a film slr, not at the rate i want to take pics, so i coughed up a chunk of cash and got a 300d...in 4 months ive taken so many pics, just the cost or "no cost" to practice and learn is worth it

although with digital i find my pictured are very chard compared to film, but thats why we take our pics in into photoshop :)

[Tapeman]

OK the practice thing is a big plus I had not steessed.

But in reality I am notgoing to save money because I will buy better software and eventually upgrade computer etc.

[defordphoto]

Grab the popcorn. This one should be fun!

Actually, I have become a better photographer since going digital. I always held back with film just because of the expense. I become bored with photography before going to digital, but yes, that is my own fault and I know that. I got lazy and just didn't want to hassle with film anymore, or its associated expenses and trips to and from the lab.

After shooting my last race with film three years ago, I don't miss it one bit. Now, with digital, I'll take chance shots that I would never take before. I hated wasting film. Now, I no longer have those worries and my technique is much more aggressive now and digital re-awoke the photographer in me. Reborn, if I may use that term.

At 6.5 megapixels and above you get as good or (at times) better than film up to medium sized enlargements. Anything higher than that and it just increases from there. It's dependent (as you know) by the quality of shot, quality of lens, etc.

That being said, many people are having great success with large enlargements at 20x30 or greater with surprising results using 6.5mp files. But, we also must take into account that the quality of photo produced is more than just simple megapixels. How the camera handles the resulting file makes a lot of difference too.

The MKII using DIGIC-II is producing some awesome photos and we're just now starting to see how amazing this camera really is. Not only speed, but with the in-camera processing performed by its internal processors.

Another fantastic option with these dSLRs is shooting RAW. You can literally re-invent the wheel at your computer after the fact. You can change white balance, kick the shot 2 stops either way and a myriad of other things if your shot isn't just right. You can make a keeper-shot from a tosser with just a few clicks. That in itself is pretty amazing.

That being said, the workflow after the fact can become cumbersome. But, there are some incredible tools out there than can streamline the workflow, making it both easy and fun. You just may re-discover yourself in the digital darkroom.

You can always shoot JPEG too. That's the digital equivalant of a slide. You're pretty much stuck with what you have, but there are some limited adjustments you can make to photos after-the-fact shooting JPEG. You're a bit more limited in enlarging JPEG files as there is quite a bit less information present in the file as compared to the digital negative: RAW.

It's a big step for hardcore film users, and there will be a bit of a culture-shock and a definite learning curve, but once you make the leap and commit. It's worth it. It's allowed my photography to expand 50-fold -- maybe 100-fold since going digital.

Your mileage may vary.

[Vita Rara]

I'm with KFMSports, I also feel reborn since going digital. I'd given up photography due to the expense of film and the feeling of wasting it. The lack of control once the photo was taken also bothered me. Now I just click away. If the pictures is bad, toss it, no big deal, and I have control after the exposure.

If you are worried about the post processing don't be. I worried about the RAW vs. JPG debate for a while. Then I put the camera on JPG and forgot about it. About 3,000 exposures later I'm starting to think about using RAW. I like what KFM said in regard to RAW vs. JPG, shooting JPG is like shooting slides, you get what you get. I personally like that. It makes me really think about what I'm doing.

Mark

[friscomgm]

If it weren't for Digital, I would not be into photography at all. I cannot imagine the costs associated with even candid shots. I've probably shot a thousand pictures of my dog just for the heck of it, to test settings, or just because he's an easy subject. I wouldn't have shot 90% of these if I had to deal with film.

[ron chappel]

I got a DSLR simply because i desperately WANTED :D :D

that said,the main advantage i didn't expect is the gorgeous true to lfe colours one gets from the D60/10D/300D

Since going digital i'm stunned at how disgustingly crap all films are!! :evil: :evil: :evil: kodakchrome and maybe gold100 are about the only films i could cope with.Most slide film i find outright depressing :x -horrid dark gamma and fake colours.It does look awsome in nat geo but allmost all other slide pics i see depress me

[c0ntr0lz]

if you already have the lenses and tripod and what not then you're saving TOOOOOOOONS of money

[theflyingkiwi]

You have come to the right place, if you wont to be pushed in to going to the digital way. The people are very supportive of anyone wont/needing to learn digital.

As you can also read there are also a number of people that have moved from film to digital. I myself are not one of those people. I am the one that always wonted to get in to photography. But until digital came out, I never had the money to get the kinda of camera I would have liked. Plus the on going cost would have made it impossible.

But when I first saw a digital camera I knew that this was the future and I just had to wait until the right time to get my first camera. The G3 (which is digital) was a good camera but it lacked something else. Then a friend got a 10D and then I knew my time behind a camera had come.

So now I have spent $7000 (NZL Dollars) on equipment and I am glad that I did. I wouldn't have it any other way. I have taken more photos in the year that I got the 10d than I would have ever thought with a film camera.

Digital is here and it is here to stay, it allows anyone that enjoys taking photos, or who is creative in any way, total freedom.

[droosan]

The most important advantages of digital, for me, are:

being able to review pictures immediately in order to make improvements

being able to use pictures immediately, not waiting for a roll to be finished and then developed...

not missing shots that I would not have taken with film because they "may not turn out". With digital I can be far more adventuresome, taking pictures in difficult lighting situations...

[Lamplight]

For those who can create great images with film, you have my utmost respect. I used to shoot with an old film SLR and I was lucky to get 2 decent shots on a 36 exposure roll. :oops: Since it was too expensive for me to practice much, those crappy shots were probably my fault 90% of the time. :lol: And then half the time I'd screw up trying to load the film and ruin the entire roll. :(

I always wanted to try photography as a hobby, but it wasn't until digital technology that I was able to enjoy it. My camera may have been 3 times as expensive, but now I am free to shoot practice/test shots until I'm nearly blind in my right eye. :lol: And since I'm still rather unsure of my abilities, it is good that I can see instant results (more or less) and try the shot again if needed.

Post processing can be time consuming, but many pictures only need very minor adjustments that take a mere second or two. Shooting in RAW is a little more time consuming still, but it is fantastic for correcting exposure and color problems. And Photoshop is an amazing tool! :)

Another convenience made possible by digital photography is that I no longer need my scanner. Good thing too, because mine sucked. :lol:

[Tapeman]

I notice that nobody sugessted that digital images are higher quality than 35mm film.

From what I have read, the 1Ds produces quality similar to 35mm.

Will it be the next generation of DSLRs that truly out perform film?

[droosan]

I notice that nobody sugessted that digital images are higher quality than 35mm film.

By "higher quality" do you mean "higher resolution" -- being able to enlarge the image to maximum size without visible grain or pixelation?

If so, I have found that digital's advantages are more important than this. My 10D can create beautiful 10x14's. Maybe a slow 35mm film, under optimum conditions, can go larger than this, but that isn't important to me compared to the opportunities to improve my images and improve my skills, that digital affords.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Complete and utter freedom from the shackles of our perceptions of wasting resources.. (ie film)

This is THE major benefit for anyone other than Pros who's niche leave them with no concern or consideration for the cost of film or processing.

It is the removal of that great weight that allows us to explore our photography much more completely.

[Canuck]

Here are some more points to consider...
1) No more crappy developing by flunkies at Joe's 1 Hr Photo/Joe's 3 Day Photo and suchlike.
2) If you have ever done b&w film you know about the chemicals. Need more be said?
3) Instant feedback, no more waiting for developing!
4) If you get a junk shot, who cares (no film wasted)? Delete it and try again!
5) I think it was already mentioned and kinda ties into #1 in that you do all the post processing not some flunkie.

This list could go on...I'm off to pop some popcorn. Anyone else want any? :)

It is on me, I just cracked 1000 posts!

[Tapeman]

What about dynamic range?

I'll admit I'm having you guys on a little bit. I'm sold on DSLRs.

I was about ready to pull the trigger on the 1D, but they dried up & the mkII rumors started to circulate. That was when I joined this foum.

My philosphy is to buy for the long term. eg: good glass & bodies that will produce high quality images ( If I get lucky)

I just wonder if I want to keep a body for 5 to 10 years is this the time to act.

I have been buying accessories that will be compatable with EOS DSLRs for the last 2 years.

I have tons of money in equipment & lenses that are interchangeble between formats.

I know that buying into a new technoligy you will have to accept that next year there will be something better for less money.

[SeanDempsey]

Nobody wants to say it, but hey, Digital allows you to take those "private" pictures of you and your girlfriend/wife/whatever. No need to have them developed....

You all know what I mean.

[BDM]

With digital you won't be spending $200.00 a month on film and processing. As far as time spent in post processing is concerned, just like film based photography, you won't be processing all of your shots - - only those which look interesting after viewing the images with a file viewer. And as you gain experience, your post processing, at least for run of the mill manipulations, will become faster and more efficient.

I have been a film based photographer for a long time. I will continue to use film for large format work when I want the perspective corrections available with a view camera. But I must say I have been very much impressed by the print quality I have been getting with my simple little Drebel. With reasonably simple post processing with Capture 1 and Photoshop and using my Epson 2200 printer I regularly get prints at least to 11X14 which are very hard to tell from medium format film based shots processed in my lab. I do my own color printing with professional grade equipment.

I suggest you get something like a Drebel as a learning tool. But do get a decent lens for it so it has a fair chance. Play with it. You it alongside your film camera. Try some post processing manipulation of raw files. Perhaps you can have some shots printed without taking the plunge of getting a printer yourself.

That should provide a good overview of what digital photography may be able to do for you. You may decide it has utility or maybe not.

As far as the more expensive cameras are concerned, they do have advanced features. If you need them you can get them. But even the Drebel will turn out identical images to the 10D and they are really quite good. The 1DS or 1D mark II are better, but for the purpose of checking out the digital world, I think the Drebel will be instructive at a minimum of cost.

I will also say this. Shoot a ASA 800 35 mm negative film under various light conditions. Make or have made some 11X14 prints. Do the same thing with say the Drebel or the 10D. Make or have made equivalent size prints with the same degree of cropping. I think you will be surprised at the sharpness and lack of grain compared to the film images.

Bruce

[Tom W]

I think everybody here has pretty-much summed up the advantages of digital, so I'll just add my thoughts:

The camera is both a tool and a toy, but its useless if you don't use it. I find myself using it a lot now that I've gone digital. That wasn't the case with film. Go digital and enjoy photography!

[Tom W]

Nobody wants to say it, but hey, Digital allows you to take those "private" pictures of you and your girlfriend/wife/whatever. No need to have them developed....

You all know what I mean.

I'm afraid that you'll have to provide an example of this particular situation.

Just kidding, of course. :D

[defordphoto]

What about dynamic range?

Read Pekka's review on the MKII: http://photography-on-the.net/1DmarkII/

[friscomgm]

Nobody wants to say it, but hey, Digital allows you to take those "private" pictures of you and your girlfriend/wife/whatever. No need to have them developed....

You all know what I mean.

I have no idea what you are talking about. 8)