Why is 35mm cameras better than digital cameras?

Answer 1

Because when your computer crashes and you backed up on cheap CDs that oxidized, you'll still have the negatives or slides.

Answer 2

There is a very arbitrary statement interlaced within your question here---
There are cases that this is true and cases where this is not true- Thing is--if you have a fairly mediocre 35mm and a really great digital---zap-- the 35mm is gonna loose---- same is true the other way around--
These days you have some really super superior digital cameras that sport some unbelievable price tags that most consumers never ever even see--- running into the thousands of dollars---so-- believe me here-- the professional is not shelling out that kind of money for sub standard equipment or equipment that he or she can do as well by with equipment costing far far less--- they're just simply not THAT ignorant

I have been a professional photographer for many years and work in several formats including 35mm -- medium format-- larger view format and digital--- each format brings its own qualities to the mix and one has to gauge what they are looking to produce in the final copy to know which format to run with ---
BUT-- if you have made this ASSUMPTION because of your own comparisons or experience-- I would suggest you revisit the comparitive quality of the two formats that you were using and I think maybe the 35 was somewhat over levered against a cheaper and possibly very outclassed digital !!!

Answer 3

Actually there is digital cameras that is 35mm cameras.

the quality of the camera depends on (1) the size of the sensor regardless if it was a film or digital (2) the lenses : Prime lenses is better than the zoom one (3) the body of the camera and the additional features....

Answer 4

Okay, there are two ways to look at this:

1. Artistically
2. Speed, time and money

1. Artistically speaking, the art of film has been in the making since the earlier 1800's when photographs were directly imposed onto plates coated with light sensitive material. The fact that before digi's came out that film was finding its way into smaller formats is actaully quite amazing. As a photographer working with film you have the elasticity to lay with the negatives in several ways: during neg development and during actually photo development. These allow you to manipulate tonality and light (even color if you get to work in a color studio). Digi aso always elasticity but not in the same hands-on format that real film provides. Real photographers know how to shoot film .... and then translate that ability when shooting digi in the ways of composition and lighting. The weekend shooter is truthfully better using a digi for the following reasons:

2. Speed, time and money. Real film photography is costly and with digis competing in the marketplace, you really have to have a good idea of what you are shooting for because more film used translates to more money spent and more time spent in the darkroom. Digis totally blow the time and money factor out of the water. When i bought my first 35mm SLR about 10 years ago, I paid $300 bucks for a basic package with the basic 30-85 lens. Now, you can get a 5mp digi that shoots high quality images up to about 80-100 pics per memory card and you can easily delete what you don't want to make more room. Also, you don't have to print every pic because all you have to do is stick them on CD or DVD to show them to your friends.

Artistically, I allows shoot film. For work and fast paced enviroments, I shoot digi. They both have good qualities, it just depends on what you are looking for.

Answer 5

In some cases, yes. In others, no. It's sort of like comparing apples and oranges.

Answer 6

it isn't