Digital cameras revisited- is the quality of the pics better than 35 mm?
 

I am leaving for Rome and Calabria on Thursday, and I am tossing around the idea of getting a digital cam. I would bring both my 35mm Pentax 38mm-130mm, and the digital (since I bought a good deal of film already). Then I usually scan in the good pics to e-mail or create an online album.

For some reason, I am always on the fence with this issue and just end up not getting one. What are the pros & cons of a digital? I've done research, and I know the obvious pros- no film, previewing the pics before developing and deleting the bad, etc.

If I bought one I would probably get a 3.2 MP. Would the quality be comparable to 35mm pics? Are the colors as vibrant? Do most of you develop your own or use a service such as ofoto?

Thanks for any and all opinions!

I'm not an expert, so I use digital.

The nice thing about it is that color, contrast, brightness, can be corrected in a program like photoshop. If you take mostly snapshots, I think you will find it as satisfactory as film in a point and shoot.

But I think it cannot beat film for certain qualities. For instance, my nature pics with water in them...they just don't have the life that film gives.

I did my own color print and slide developing for years and then gave up, too much time what with family and all. I purchased a 4megapixel camera about 3 years ago and I am very happy with it.

Having said that, I use a 35mm Nikkomat that I bought in Japan 35 years ago. I have a 24, 50, 28-105, and 80-205mm lenses. I don't have these same lenses for the digital, although it does zoom. There are differences in depth of field that you have to get used to. Also, I got pretty quick with my SLRs and could point, focus, and shoot pretty quickly. Theres a significant lag when shooting a digital photo.

I think the "you get to preview" argument is weak because the other side of that is I couldn't tell you how many digital images I have, though I've spent a lot of time putting them on CD and cataloguing them. It requires a great more organization than film . . . in my opinion.

We take both. The digital is great because we can trash photos that blur or are ugly on the spot, download to laptop at the end of the day and look at them or email them right then. The quality is excellent, at least on the computer -- images I doubt you could duplicate on film without a tripod or spending a lot of time framing the picture. Great for spontaneous photos too. The main downside, imo, is in the prints, which to me don't seem as vibrant as film. Also, unless you burn them on CD after, if you've downloaded them to computer and the hard drive crashes (which happened to us, 1st & last time it will happen), you've lost the photos forever (unless you emailed them to a friend and they've kept them). We have a camera that zooms in really close, better than binoculars. You can get red-eye out with photoshop. The only other drawback with our particular camera (Nikon) is it's not true to color with certain shades of dark red/mauve -- making those colors more of an orangy red.

I own both a digital and a 35mm camera (actually two 35mm cameras), and I wouldn't give any of them up.
So I usually travel with all my cameras (very cumbersome, I know that one day I will have to choose between shampoos etc and cameras, and naturally the cameras will win ((A)) !!).

My digital (3.2 megapixel) is fairly new, and it gives excellent quality and color, both on the computer monitor, and in prints ("developed" = actually sent by e-mail to a photo shop and printed on photo quality paper etc.).

Advantages of a digital:
It is very easy use.
The memory cards (CF cards) are very small and store lots of photos, so you don't have to pack a lot of film.
You can delete pictures that you don't like (and immediately retake pictures when you discover that you don't like the shot that you just took).
It is very easy to download the photos from the camera to your computer.
The quality of a downloaded digital image is better than a scanned 35mm photo, no matter what photoshop manipulation you use.
You can take a photo and send it to a freind in less time than it is taking me to type this reply!!

Disadvantages:
The downside to the digital is that the camera isn't quite as flexible as my 35mm, and the number of settings (shutter speed, depth of field etc) is limited.
Digitals use a lot of power so you have to have an extra set of batteries available at all times.

Hope this helps, have a good trip!!

On a good printer a 3mp digital image will look as good at 8 x 10 as an image off most Kodacolor negative media. Above 8 x 10 or if you want to do selective enlarging, a 3mp camera runs out of gas. For snapshot size prints the differences are undetectable. As far as color balance and all that is concerned, any decent software package (you do not need $500 Photoshop; $90 Paint Shop Pro 8 is fab - I just got it and am gobsmacked) will give you way more control than you'll have with any photo lab.

So if you can afford a 4mp or 5mp camera, with a decent optical zoom, go for it and be amazed. The downsides have already been mentioned, but let me re-emphasize one in particular. Digitals don't permit "grab shots" very easily. When you push the button the machine thinks for a second or two before the shutter goes off. Then it ruminates for 2 to 5+ seconds digesting the image before it's ready to go again. In that time, the butterfly has long since flittered off. The film camera, depending on the vintage, can peel off 3 or 4 frames in the time the diggie can muster 2. Not important if you're photographing mountains, otherwise irritating.

Also, mass-market digitals have a hard time coping with low-light situations, so if you want to take night shots use the film camera.

And get a big honking memory card (or 2 or 3) for the digital, so that you can use the highest resolution without running out of space. And rechargable batteries, and be religious about recharging them nightly.

If I got one with rechargeable batteries in the US, I wouldn't be able to charge them up in Europe. Is an adaptor adequate or should I buy a charger in Italy?

Thanks for all the insights. Still on the fence of course. I guess it's partially because the money for the digital would come out of allotted spending money- dilemma... But I love to take pictures on vacation, and always end up with about 30% of my developed pics being junk!

The rechargers are almost always universal 110v/240v although you'd need a plug adaptor.

I had the same dilemma when planning our first trip to Europe. We chose to buy a digital and were VERY happy with the pictures. Pluses were there was no film to carry around as we used the memory stick which held 700+ pictures. Also no need to worry about the film being damaged by the x-ray machines in the airports. We recharged the battery every evening, of coarse we had to purchase an adaptor for this. The pictures are great quality! We were even able to make them black & white or sepia if we wanted. Which made some beautiful pictures even better.

We will use it again on our trip to Italy next summer. We are actually looking into the digital camcorders to use for both a camcorder and digital camera. But I have found that people generally suggest that the digital cameras in these are not good enough to print, not enough pixels, but just to send via email??? Still researching.
Good luck and have a great trip!

I've also been on the fence with this, being a devotee of the 35mm and having some professional work, I am so torn.

On my last trip to Italy, I took 32 rolls of 36, which really took a lot of place in my handcarry bag.

I've been looking at the Minotal DiMage 7Hi, does anybodya have any experience with this camera? It is a 5.0, I like my pictures very clear and crisp, and if I spend close to a $1000 for a camera and I am dissatisfied with the picture quality and feel compelled to go back to my 35mm all the time, I would be really annoyed. I don't see ever giving my 35mm, but it would be nice to have the option on a long trip not to carry bags and bags of film.

ttt

Lyb,

I took my Minolta Dimage 7Hi to Italy and was very pleased with the results.
I took extra memory cards (including a 512) and took pics in a better quality setting than the default.

The results were very good. I have framed several as 8x10 and will enlarge a couple even more.

It has the "feel" of a 35 mm which I like better than my first digital. For most people, this is probably more camera than they need and larger than necessary...but I love it!

Three days to decide on a several-hundred dollar high-tech purchase? That's not much time to do research, and then compare prices. You'll also need to think about storage options, batteries, your computer needs, printing ...

Unless you're a US Congressman. Then I guess you could just throw enough money at the problem to insure you'll be happy with what you get.

I love digital, but choosing the right camera is not a decision to be taken lightly if you expect to be satisfied.

For this trip I think you should take your 35mm camera. If you are an experienced photographer, professional or amateur, you'll find that shooting with a 35 mm is very diffent from shooting with a digital, and you have only 3 days before you leave. And, I believe 35mm still offers many more compositional options. When you return, consider buying the highest megapixel camera that you can afford. The newer 4 and 5 megapixel cameras have several features that get ever closer to the options on a 35mm. I think you'll be more satisfied with the greater digital choices that the higher end 4-5 megapixel cameras offer. In fact because this would be a new purchase, I wouldn't bother with a 3 megapixel today, since there are newer and better ones on the market.

I agree with drsawyers and kathleen.

Even if you buy the right digital for yourself( purely by accident), you will not have the time to get used to the camera before your trip.

The better digitals have many features and it can take considerable time to get comfortable with them.

For this trip, stick with your 35mm

AP, I'm going to Italy in March and just bought a digital camera to play with to see if it's worth bringing it and my non-digital camera, or one or the other. I can't yet speak to the quality of the camera or its prints as it hasn't arrived yet, but I'm giving myself 6 months to play with it, which is very extreme, admittedly. But I definitely wouldn't decide on it in 3 days, and expect to know how to use it by the time I got where I was going! Plus, the amount of research that goes into which brand, what model, etc...wow!

I've been researching digitals on & off for months, I can just never decide whether or not to buy one. I do agree a few days isn't much time to get used to a new camera, but I am very much just a point & shoot person. Even if I bought one a month or two ago I doubt I would have really tried it out in different lighting, settings, etc. I just like to go around exploring & snapping away. I like to keep it simple, that's why I thought a 3 MP would be good enough for me.

I love the colour we get from our digital camera. Originally I thought I wouldn't be able to live without my 35mm camera; now I'm not even taking it on our next trip. I don't want to deal with the weight, film, cost and piles of prints any more. Plus I love being able to so easily crop, clone, brighten, etc., on the computer.

My only peeve is the lag described by Gardyloo, but if I know I am going to take action shots and have a moment to get ready, I just set it on Continuous and fire away (which I wouldn't want to do if I had to pay for film and development). While it may not be extremely rapid-fire, I usually end up with some good action pictures.

We are crazy over our new Canon A70 Powershot digital. Quality is excellent! My Canon i560 printer does such a fantastic job on the prints-I found my best price for the photo paper at Sam's. That stuff can be expensive-shop around!
As long as I have a 256 CF card, digital is the way to go for us.

Dick,

Thanks for the input on the Minolta DiMage. One of the things I like about it is that it seems to have more options and act more like a 35 MM.

>>It has the "feel" of a 35 mm which I like better than my first digital. For most people, this is probably more camera than they need and larger than necessary...but I love it!<<

I have to admit, most people think my current Minolta 35mm is more than people need. But I like to experiment with it, due long exposure. In fact I took some great night time pictures from Piazza Michaelangelo overlooking Florence and the city al lighted up came out great.

Your comments about the 8x10 print make me feel more confident. I do intend to shoot at a high resolution, so I guess I will have to buy plenty of cards...but that still will take less space than 32 rolls! :)