Digital SLR vs. Anlog SLR

[ernanc]

Dear forum members
I am an amateurs photographer.
I have question to the professional members.
What are the different between analog and digital cameras regarding the quality output.

Thanks.

[kendersplace]

Much has been written on this if you search around the internet for stuff like "film vs. digital" and so on.

For what it's worth, here is my feeling and observation (shooting film 10 yrs, digital for about 6 months).

1. As far as actual quality, it seems that a 35mm fine grain slide (like Velvia or something) after being drum scanned (very expensive and much higher resolution than you'll get with any off the shelf film scanner), it seems the resulting scan may exceed the quality of a 6 MP camera.

2. I can't tell the difference between a drum scan and an image out of a 6 MP digital when printed at 8x10. Maybe some can, but I can't.

3. I have printed up to 16x20 off of 6 MP digital images and I think they look just fine. Definately sharper than any print film I've ever seen enlarged that much.

4. I waited until 6 MP cameras were available before switching to digital, as I think this gives "film like" and sometimes even better than film images.

5. I shot 150 rolls of Velvia the year before I got my first D-SLR. At about $10 a roll (including E-6 chemicals), I spent $1500 on film. This would nearly pay for a D-SLR, so cost wise, it made a whole lot of sense to me.

6. I would scan my film slides using a good consumer film scanner, and even on a good scan, they never look anywhere near as good as the digital right out of my camera.

7. Unless you're shooting landscapes and must have film for whatever reason, I think digital really makes sense.

Hope that helps. I debated about the switch for a long time. With the new Canon 10D out now (a "second generation" D-SLR) some of the early limitations of digital have been refined more so, and I think this is now a truely usable piece of professional or advanced amature equipment.

-Kevin