How many megapixels you need to match the old film cameras? 1 trillion? Why digital cameras suck so much?

Question

enough said in the question subject <.<

Answer 1

Actually I’m not sure that I agree with you that digital cameras suck. I did 35 mm film photography for over thirty years using a professional SLR and I switched to digital three years ago with a digital professional SLR. My images are equal to film for the most part.

First of all realize that film is composed of small grains that are light sensitive. Digital cameras are also composed of small grains, in this case called pixels, that are also light sensitive. As the physical size of a pixel approaches the size of a light sensitive grain on a film, you get comparable sharpness and colour rendition. With the latest crop of full frame sensors that operate at ten or more mega pixels, the grain sizes are now pretty well the same. Even at the smaller APS sensor size there’s virtually no difference between the two media.

Add to this, if you want to spend enough money (about $35,000 - $50,000) there are medium format cameras on the market that go up to 49 mega pixels that produce absolutely incredible results.

It really depends on what you’re comparing. If you want to compare the image from a cheap point and shoot camera against a film image for an SLR clearly the film wins. But if you recognize that someone who is using a cheap point and shoot would, years ago, have used a cheap film camera, you’ll find the results pretty comparable with digital having a slight edge these days.

That said though, there are an always will be differences. If you think of the old sepia prints and the later black and white prints, they’re certainly a lot different than the colour ones. Yet all three continue to exist, none is better than the other, it simply depends on what you want to use it for. Clearly if a colour image is needed the best solution is a colour film as opposed to a black and white one, but that doesn’t mean the black and white format is dead or useless or less good, it simply means it has other purposes today.

If you look at print media you’ll find that virtually all images now are digital as opposed to film based. There are a variety of reasons for that. For one thing you can instantly know what the results are of a picture, that allows you to miss less pictures since you can retake it if it’s not right. For another thing you can manipulate digital images in an endless variety of ways that are simply impossible with film. Operating costs are a lot lower too, you may spend more on the equipment, but once you have it you’ll find it costs almost nothing to take pictures. With film it cost less to get the gear but then you paid through the nose to keep buying and processing film. Digital is also a lot more environmentally friendly, it doesn’t have a plethora of chemicals, many toxic, to deal with.

In this age of the automobile and the airplane, it’s not unheard of to have someone say that a horse and buggy sucks and is a thing of the past. Yet in many major cities there are still horse and buggies for those who find that mode of transportation to be quaint and romantic. It’s simply not for everyone but it continues to exist and is perfect for some applications. Similarly there are times when film excels over digital though they are increasingly fewer. Even so when digital surpasses film sometimes film will still remain a good choice for some specific applications.

But all that said, digital is where our world is heading and the results I’m getting from my professional gear is at least equal to, and often superior to, the results I used to get shooting Kodachrome ASA 25 film. But in truth I’ve not thrown out my film gear, I simply use it rarely now but it still has an occasional application either in 35mm or in medium format since I used to shoot both.

I hope this helps you understand this medium a bit better.

Answer 2

35mm is not the "Holy Grail" of image quality for film photography. There is a technology older than 35mm film that is far better in quality - medium format - think Hasselblad, Mamiya, Yashica, etc. Medium format is better qualty than 35mm because the negatives are much larger - about 2" x2" - I could stand corrected on this as I'm not that familiar with Medium format. If your mom or grandma had a Brownie - that was medium format. Large format - often used for architectural photography has even better image quality. Anyone who attempts to compare film and digital from a quality perspective is out of perspective and focus [I'm trying to be polite]. The technologies of film and digital sensors are vastly different. For example digital sensors still have a long way to go to match the color saturation of ISO 100 film. It's the old story of apples and oranges. At the end of the day, it's not the tools, it's not the mastery of the tools. It's all about the result - the light, the subject, the composition, etc. A talented photographer can take a cover shot photograph with a drugstore box camera, while an over equipped, untalented buffoon can ruin any Kodak moment.

Answer 3

If digital cameras suck so much as you put it, then shoot 35mm. You do have that option. Don't forget to buy film, and set some bucks aside for processing.
Very good photos can be made with digital cameras having megapixels of between 4&6.

Answer 4

In the film days, film was expensive, so people tended to only shoot important things, carefully composed their scenes before pressing the shutter, etc.. With digital you can shoot a million pictures and it doesn't cost any more than shooting 24 pictures, so people are taking way more pictures and being a lot more casual (some would say careless) about them.

Furthermore, if you wanted to share your film photos, you had to pay to print doubles or convince someone to look at your albums. Only the cream of the crop photos were amazing enough to get published to a wide audience. But with the internet and digicams, anybody can easily publish their terrible photos without any thought to their quality or the cost of sharing them.

Bottom line, there are billions of terrible digicam pics out there, but it's not because digicams themselves suck. It's because people around the world are taking far more pictures than they used to, most of which have little to no value or importance, and are sharing them much more freely than film pictures ever were.

Answer 5

I don't agree that the digital cameras suck. For most applications, digital cameras work as well as film cameras. That is why Kodak is having to scramble to avoid becoming an obsolete business.

Answer 6

Did you ever shoot at 1600 ISO with film ?
A simple Fuji F30 can do better than any film in low light...
That's why digital doesn't suck !

In studio shooting, an EOS1Ds MkIII catches as much details as a good 24x36 film (like a Provia), but is far more convenient (no need to develop the film to see the pictures)...

Answer 7

3MP is about the same a using 100ASA in a 35mm. As far as the suck part of a digital camera's, it maybe you have no digital camera knowledge.

Not enough said ?

Answer 8

Here's a whole page on the subject, complete with graphs:

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.1.html

Hope this helps.