Digital Camera vs Analog?

Question

Hi, im starting out photography, i did it for a year now, and im considering purchasing my own camera. The problem is i cant decide between analog and digital. A digital camera is much easier to use, i dont need a darkroom and i can quickly put it on my computer. However i still like analog cameras, they'r more "artsy" and i just feel a bit better using and analog, but a problem would be with a darkroom, which i have access to now, but that might change. Also last factor to consider, is price.

Hi, im starting out photography, i did it for a year now, and im considering purchasing my own camera. The problem is i cant decide between analog and digital. A digital camera is much easier to use, i dont need a darkroom and i can quickly put it on my computer. However i still like analog cameras, they'r more "artsy" and i just feel a bit better using and analog, but a problem would be with a darkroom, which i have access to now, but that might change. Also last factor to consider, is price.

PS. No, i used an analog camera, which i borrowed from my photography teacher, they werent point and click cameras, i could control the light meter, aperture, focus, etc.. so it was one of the "sophisticated" cameras, and the darkroom, is also in my school.

Ah, yes.. also one thing i forgot to add is that i will be using this camera for artistic shots, not family etc.. some examples of my older work which i scanned onto my computer are here:
http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/40662954/
http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/40664687/

Answer 1

There are advantages and disadvantages for either/or. But, let's clarify a myth and let's get that out of the way for once and for all: digital is NOT as inexpensive as the digital technology would have you believe. I will give you my reasons, which I must point out are a bit biases since I prefer film technology to digital.

Firstly, you need a computer with high speed processing capacity of photographic information and Gig-amounts of hard drive memory for storage, and that goes without saying; these are not always inexpensive. Secondly, you need a lot of RAM memory, too. You will need to also have some sort of external hard drive or storage device of photo images for when you're out in the field. You will also need to have a camera that is usually about five times the cost of a comparable film camera with similar features; this camera will be outdated in 2 years and will require update to yet another expensive camera. The digital technology wears out batteries; you need expensive re-chargeable batteries and a battery re-charger with you. The camera technology is really not stable and often degrade or corrupt and you love files of images easily; and there are issues with storing information on CDs (which may or may not last 2 years, can be easily be damned by a magnetic field, heat, humidity, etc); you will have to be constantly re-storing the information. You will need a good printer (the images are only as good as the printer), which also will be outdated in 2 years or so and will need to be updated with yet another printer. The archival issues of papers and inks are not yet standardized across the board with different manufacturers, and these inks and paper are costly. The printer, the monitor screen and the images on memory must be adjusted so that your printed images resemble what you see on the monitor and what you have on memory; this requires a separate device and the procedure must be performed every few weeks to maintain constant (this device is another cost). The archival issues of the actual images are in question; the images can fade with the existing UV light rays from fluorescent lights, environmental humidity and/or heat, and the aerosol sprays from air fresheners and/or cleaners, etc. The camera storage modes are not yet standardized between different camera manufacturers. Of course, let's not forget the cost of the PhotoShop programs and others that you must maintain updated, and must learn how to operate; do not forget that you will be spending many, many hours behind the computer tweaking and enhancing and correcting images, and the shallower dynamic range of the digital sensors that do NOT come near conventional film (poor and often inadequate and unacceptable image details in the shadowy areas of images when there are strong lighted areas, too, in the same image). The constant upgrading of cameras, printers, image programs, printers, etc., every two years or os can be costly affairs...

There are images of my maternal great-grandmother as a very young girl in my family, taken during the late 1800s, and these are still VERY visible and have not degraded or faded... we REALLY do not know for certain that digital technology's claims will match that. There is far more depth within the images printed from film images that emerge from within conventional silver halide papers than those printed inks or dyes on the surface of papers.

The digital cameras are flimsy in build and do not come as near in quality as film cameras and they have constant problems with the air borne dust that is attracted to the digital sensors. They are more susceptible to heat and humidity than film cameras and, particularly, extreme cold weathers.

Film cameras are more robust and simply better built. They are better quality cameras at 1/5 the cost for comparable features.

Images that you do not like in a digital camera are erased; you are, therefore, deprived of the opportunity to learn from your mistakes... with film technology you get to keep your mistakes so that you can learn from them.

You quickly get into the habit of machine-gunning a digital camera but you MUST think and plan and learn how to compose the images, crop certain elements, etc., with film... you LEARN to take photos and make every shot count...

Yes, you get to see the images within seconds of taking an image but that advantage is overshadowed by the loss of quality of image detail you would have gotten from film technology.

If you still want a very good digital camera, let me suggest that you consider a Nikon D70S with the kit lens. Remember, when you buy a camera, you are buying into a system of lenses and the availability of future lenses that you will learn to use and need for particular features and purposes of your photography. Most camera companies do not maintain the same lens mount; Nikon has maintained the same lens mount since 1958 and you can fit any old lens on any new camera, or any new lens on any old camera; of course, you do lose certain objects... you cannot expect to get the auto-focus feature from an AF lens on a non-auto focus camera... or get auto-focus from a manual camera and an AF lens.

The Nikon D70S is very versatile and has all of the features (buttons, knobs, switches) within easy to reach and logical areas. It is ergonomically built. Try it and compare it to any other camera and then decide. I only recommend that you use Nikkor lenses (same as Nikon) on Nikon cameras. Stay away from those bargain generic lenses (inferior build and inferior glass formulas) where you will pay for what you get... inferior quality images as you enlarge... and these do NOT retain re-sale prices for that same reason.

Stay away from super-zoom lenses... 28-200mm and 28-300mm; they ALL have some increased aberrations and/or distortions at both extremes of the lens (regardless of brand make; it has to do with the impossibility of engineering, not production in spite of the immense advances in engineering through the use of modern computers and robotic precisions and the immense in quality control...

Now, if you wish to buy a good USED and inexpensive camera with almost professional features, I would suggest the Nikon N80. It has three kinds of metering (Spot, Average or Center Weighted and 3-D Matrix). You can use this camera on manual focus or auto-focus at any time. You can also use the camera completely manual where you set the aperture and shutter speed. You can select the desired aperture and the camera will select the correct shutter speed. Or, you can select the desired shutter speed and the camera will select the correct aperture. Or, you can use it completely automatic and the camera will select the aperture and correct shutter speed for you. It has a built-in strobe, good for up to 5/6 feet (great for fill-in light, too). It also has an on demand grid lines to help you maintain the horizons level during landscape/seascape photos. The camera will set the ISO for you automatically. The camera will advance the film for you automatically and rewind it as you take the very last image. It is a no-nonsense camera that you will NOT easily outgrow and the best camera for learn and for taking classes, too. I strongly suggest that you get the Instructions Manual, too.

I will recommend that you look into using the following lenses:
a) Nikkor AF28-105mm f/3.5-5.6 which is the most popular and most versatile lens ever made by Nikon. You an use it as a wide angle lens, a regular lens, a portrait lens, a short telephoto lens AND as a marcro lens, too. If you cannot afford this lens, you may elect to get the older but equally as versatile lens, 35-105mm f/3.5-5.6D-Macro (MUST say "macro") and get the same versatility as the first one mentioned.
b) Nikkor AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6D for telephoto uses. A very nice lens and it yields great images. It is a very good lens for regular light usage.
c) Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D lens which is the "regular" lens that can be used for low-light situations as well as a short portrait lens, too.

Yes, many professionals have indeed gone over to the digital side but many have also returned to film and some prefer it for the great image quality details and the depth of the images that emerge from with the papers.

In MY personal opinion, I feel that the digital technology has duped everyone into accepting convenience over quality; I also believe that they are pushing this new technology which is cheaper to manufacture because the profit margins are larger! Another conspiracy theory... I don't think so.

I suggest that you save some money and buy USED at www.keh.com and check what they have available and keep checking everyday for their great prices... but be ready to buy as soon as you see what you like; the merchandise does not stay on the shelves very long. The prices are the most competitive ones around, the ratings are very conservative and the personnel very, very polite and most helpful.

If you're concerned about "digitizing" the film images, you can either ask for a CD of the film during the development and processing OR you can use your scanner; you will probably get far better digital images this way, depending on the resolution you use for the scanner and the film images.

Send me an email if you have any further questions. Good luck and very best wishes. (Edited 10/2: YOUR EMAIL IS NOT VALID; I CANNOT RESPOND TO YOUR EMAIL)

Answer 2

Film cameras can be a lot cheaper than digital cameras once you start looking for "serious" features that allow YOU to control the final outcome.

Then again, unless you have access to a darkroom, buying all that equipment and the chemicals and film can outpace the initial investment in a digital camera pretty quickly.

The best way to learn photography is to DO IT and do a LOT of it. I used to buy film in 100 foot rolls and shoot maybe 200-250 exposures in an afternoon and go back at night and devlop it so I could see it NOW when I still remembered what the conditions were, etc. With digital, you can see every exposure right away on the monitor. You can even set it up to show you if any areas of your photo are overexposed so you know to make corrections and shoot again - NOW. I think this is a tremendous learning advantage.

Now... If you want to really learn about photography, you will want an SLR and not a point-and-shoot camera, which I suspect is what you have been messing with for the past year. It's a whole different ball game.

I'll assume that you have a computer, since you are posting a question on the internet. You can get decent and powerful imaging software, such as Photoshop Elements 4.0 for about $100 or so, so that would be the only required additional investment to start up in digital photography.

Answer 3

Well my suggestion to you is a compromise between digital and film technologies. I would suggest getting a used film camera and a relatively decent scanner. Considering the type of photography you seem to like which appears to be architectural I would suggest getting a 4x5 camera because of the tilts and swings which allow you to compensate for parallax or a camera with a lens that has perspective controls. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_control_lens
However, the problem with 4x5 is that it can be sort of hard to develop film especially since as you say, you dont have room for a darkroom. Instead I would suggest something in the medium format range: Pentax67, Mamiya Rb or Rz, Hasselblad 500series or if you have the money a Hasselblad SWC/m.
But I would have to say that for the type of work you like perhaps one of the best medium format cameras which is often overlooked is the Fujifilm GX680. This camera does actually has similar movements to a 4x5 view camera which can compensate for perspective issues when photographing cityscapes. The other good thing about this camera is that it is relatively cheap. Just go to KEH.com and you can find a good deal on all the cameras I mentioned here.
Regarding the development of the negatives you dont need a full dark room for processing medium format film, just a light tight room(typically a closet or a bathroom),a sink and your chemicals which you can store in bottles.
Now as for the type of scanner to use. A good deal can be had by considering an Epson 4490. As for printers if you are doing a lot of black and white check out the Epson R2400.
My current setup is similar to what I mentioned, and I am able to produce images which though not silverprints, are acceptable as gallery quality. Although one day when I have more room I hope I can go back to working in the darkroom doing traditional silverprints.

Answer 4

One point to consider is the color gamut, or simply the colors that can be produced by the equipment. Notice how sometimes even a well edited computer graphic sometimes lose color when printed? Both cameras differ in the manner the pictures are viewed. Analog pictures are continous tone, which is why when blown up does not show the square pixels characteristic of digital pictures, and that makes analog better. But if the pictures are more for digital apps and you want it when you want it, go for digital. Besides, if you get to sell your works, you might have enough money to buy both kinds.

Answer 5

When I got started, I had a crappy digital camera. Once I realized that I wanted to study photography, I bought a 35mm camera since it was pretty cheap. Then I bought a decent telephoto lens, and an old 50mm prime lens. After that, I bought a digital SLR body that was able to fit all those lenses. I now have both a good digital, plus my little 35mm when I want real high-quality prints. I happened to choose Nikon, but this would work with Canons as well.

Answer 6

For many years I've enjoyed the flexibility of an analogue camera (SLR), however, the technology of a good digital camera has meant even greater options, particularly with good supporting software.

Investing in a high end digital camera, say a Canon PowerShot A620, and using Photoshop Pro, will give you the ability to finely adjust the final image. Even my pocket size Fuji FinePix F460 produces poster quality results!

Answer 7

Digital camera resolution has surpass that the analog (film). The only thing that has analog going for is still a better dynamic range. Digital is the way of the future, you can do digital editing that film development can't even get close.

Answer 8

I like analog cameras. They are more challenging at times, but its also much more fun to see what you have on that film. I do mostly black and white photos, i rarely do color, so, i have to focus on the art of the photo. I have to focus on my 4 corners, and such things to make the photo interesting, but i would use my brain and try my hardest to get a good picture than just point and click, like a digital camera.

Answer 9

Some of the newer analogs are digital hybrids, that is they can take both digital or film. Canon's new Rebel is one and I think Nikon also has a hybrid. Price is maybe about $1000 for a body and a standard lens.

Answer 10

1

Answer 11

Dont they make some high-end cameras that are both? Get one of those...