Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


PRIZES GALORE! Enter The ePHOTOzine Exclusive Christmas Prize Draw; Over £10,000 Worth of Prizes! Plus A Gift For Everybody On Christmas Day!

How long before digital overtakes 35mm?

Attention!

This topic is locked.

Reason : This topic was started an awful long time ago and has generated a lot of discussion. Many good points have been raised, but I feel we can now draw things to a close, so have locked this topic. Will.


bbdigital 13 21
7 Mar 2001 1:28AM
Tom, the reasons some club members scream so loud is because they do not want the competition. Its nothing to to do with anything else, just slow down the digital upstarts as much as possible.

It was why I deserted the established clubs and found like minded individuals on the Internet.

Barry

www.bbdigital.co.uk

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

tomato 13 2
27 Mar 2001 7:12AM
Interesting thought. Some say when chip resolution reaches 14 million pixels. Others say it never will. Many are happy with the quality from 3 million pixel models.
Exciting times ahead
8 Aug 2001 1:28AM
Why is it a competition?. If some people enjoy the "perfume" of chemicals, spending their time in a muted red toned room, to produce the print that they are proud of, whether it is to enter in competition, hang on the wall or just sit back and admire who cares. "Digitizers" prefer to sit at the computer to produce their's. I can admire a picture no matter how it was produced, if I like it. Some of the digitally enhanced ones published, to my eye are awful, well over the top and not nice pictures, but whoever produced then obviosly does. As far as comparison goes have a look at some of the images produced by the likes of Adi Sethna and the imagers at Smethwick photographic WWW.theoldschoolhouse.com you won't see the join.
brianhall 13 2
8 Aug 2001 1:28AM
It will, reach 14 million pixels I mean. Anything computer related has continued to improve and come down in price consistently over the years, digital cameras are no exception.
A problem with buying a digital camera today is its value in 12 months time, but what will happen to the value of conventional cameras when digital becomes the norm?
Digital may not be the norm for many years yet but rest assured - it will happen.
bbdigital 13 21
8 Aug 2001 1:28AM
I have produced pictures in a darkroom both colour and B&W and what I see is that I am producing far better images now with my 3 megapixel digital than I ever did with film.

I am well pleased with the 20*16 prints from my digital images and I don't think a direct comparison of pixels tells us much.

I believe the two processes will work alongside each other for a while, but I would not go back to film if it were bought for me and processed.

I am sold on digital.

Barry Beckham
http://www.bbdigital.co.uk
tom hardwick 13 11
8 Aug 2001 1:28AM
Yes, why place them as competitors when they're picture making allies? It's the same with camcorders - Super 8 film continues to be sold and is lived and breathed by many,
see http://www.super8filmmaking.com/s8vid.htm Who would've thought it in this day of the camcorder? Each format has its pros and cons, its artistic merits, its own unique look and feel. Long live the diversity that is amongst us.
stuleeds 13 1
8 Aug 2001 1:28AM
For me, digital will overtake 35mm when there is an affordable SLR digital body. Presently they are a bit too expensive - but that will only last a few more years. At the moment I am in a half-way-house - using slides and negatives and then scanning them via a film scanner.

However, what really is imprtant is the image, whether it be plates, film or chips that records it.

Stuart Leeds
Big Bri 13 15.7k United Kingdom
8 Aug 2001 1:28AM
2 reasons why digital technology will soon catch up with film:
1. Digital cameras can now produce superb prints up to A4 size. In 2-3 years this quality will be available at a "mass consumer" price.
2. While you can get photo quality prints from a digital minilab at Boots or Jessops, the printers cost around 100,000. In 5 years, your Epson inkjet will produce better quality than this, so you can go digital and not need a PC.

Will it overtake digital ? Of course it will. Just like we're all driving electric flying cars... Smile
bjc 13 2
8 Aug 2001 1:28AM
How long before ??? - it already has !!
12 Aug 2001 3:44PM
I see that the discussion is up to 14 million pixels now, well I have recently changed from my cool 950(Super camera) to a Oly E10 (Superb camera). but after I have printed the "Pictures" that I want I find that I am still storing, all but the special ones that I may wish to print again, at about 5MB Jpeg'd to best in photoshop. This is quite good enough should I wish to get a 7X5 out again, and loads a lot quicker for slide shows etc as I view my photographs on the screen. So as I see it anything above 3 or 4 MP is really a luxury that will noly be needed very rarely.
roy5051 13 11
24 Oct 2001 12:04PM
Does it matter?
lesmac 13 1
25 Oct 2001 6:25PM
I've recently converted from an old faithful Nikon 35mm to Digital (Olympus 3000) and I can honestly say I never pick my Nikon up.

Digital quality is on par with 35mm....the main reason I prefer digital is the convenience....after a day's shooting I can sit down at my computer..select and enhance the images....and print out only those I want....there is no argument....Digital has won hands down
bbdigital 13 21
26 Oct 2001 2:41PM
Roy5051.

No it doesn't matter at all, but that doesn't stop people for debating the issue and the question usually comes from conventional Photographers not digital camera users.

Perhaps they are just clinging on to the old darkroom and chemical processes because they are either techno phobes or can't afford the kit to turn digital.

Like another contributor on this subject. I wouldn't use a 35mm film camera now if someone bought it and carried it around for me.

I have been sold on 100% digital photography for about 4 years and I have done all the old conventional methods.

The initial question was to suggest a 14 million chip was the answer. Frankly that is nonsense. Give me a true 14 million pixel chip in a Canon D30 and I will give you 5*4 quality.

Barry Beckham
bbdigital.co.uk
roy5051 13 11
6 Nov 2001 8:07PM
All this talk of 14 million pixels! I read somewhere the other day, in a test of a 4 megapixel camera, that one of the problems with 4mp is that the lens is unable to resolve this many pixels, and that the standard of lenses will have to improve dramatically should the pixel count be increased any more, especially if more pixels are crammed onto the same size chip.

Any thoughts, anyone?
Pete e2
13 18.7k 96 England
8 Nov 2001 3:52PM
Most people shouldn't get hung up by the number of pixels now we've reached cameras sporting 4 -5 million pixel CCDs. From an amateur's point of view (ie one that shoots on print film and rarely goes beyond 5x7 inch) these cameras will more than satisfy. Judging by the sacks of entries that I used to see while working on Practical Photography magazine that's were the majority of readers lie. There will always be photographers that are the equivalent of hifi buffs still listening to records on Linn Sondek players. But the rest of us who've swapped to CD are happier than ever. I believe some of the real issues ahead now are learning how to handle and store digital photos, achieving colour accuracy and solving battery life. Also getting over the fact that when buying product it's out of date before you leave the shop!