Robespierre, I don't generally disagree with you especially on technical issues. However, the prevailing position in this debate is very nicely summed up by expert Ken Rockwell.

http://tinyurl.com/3ppuz

Neither is better on an absolute basis. The choice depends on your application. Once you know your application the debate goes away. The debate only exists when people presume erroneously that someone else's needs mirror their own.
I can get great 12 x 18" glossy prints for $2.99 at Costco every day from my digital camera, and we all can get fuzzy results on film. It's the artist, not the medium, which defines quality.
If and only if you're an accomplished artist who can extract every last drop from film's quality then film, meaning large format film, technically is better than digital in every way. Few people have the skill to work film out to this level, thus the debate.
Most people get better results from digital. Artists print their own work, but if you use a lab for prints you'll have more control and get better results from digital.

And as far as "control", he says "
Most people get better results with digital cameras. I prefer the look of film. Film takes much more work. Extremely skilled photographers can get better results on film if they can complete the many more steps from shot to print all perfectly. Because there are so many ways things can go wrong with making prints from film, especially from print (negative) film, beginning photographers and hobbyists usually get better prints from digital because there are fewer variables to control."

what do you all mean by point and shoot? I just put my digital on automatic or P and then point and shoot. I dont even know what the other settings are.

You can crop and edit photos when you get home, to me this is the advantage of just having a memory card(s) in a digital camera.

You shouldn't give up on digital.

You can get a decent 4 or 5 megapixel camera for around 100 bucks and all you need to do is be able to turn it on, point and shoot and you will see how your image turns out.

I was like you as well....I was hesitant to buy a digital camera and had filled up my cart at walmart with about 30 bucks worth of disposable cameras. I realized how much I was spending and how much it would cost to develop the pics and also how horrible my pictures always seem.

two days before my trip I got a 5 megapixel camera and read the instructions only briefly, i mostly just fooled around with the camera on my own and learned the features.

That camera is one of the best purchases I have made lately....also, with a good sized memory card-over 256mb...I was able to take over 200 good quality pics. I was also able to see all the money I would have wasted and how horrible my pictures would have been if i had only been allowed to just take one pic and wait until they develop to see how they turned out.

go for it! you can do it!

"The debate only exists when people presume erroneously that someone else's needs mirror their own."

My recommendations do not reflect my own requirements. I cut my teeth 50 years ago on a fully-manual SLR, but I don't think more than 5% of photographers today have a clue how to use one.

If a person wants simplicity without sacrificing quality, a p/s film camera is the only option. A low-end digital can't compete with the resolution, and mid- to high-range digitals are more than many people can handle.

As far as prints are concerned - I haven't ordered prints from my 35mm negatives in years. I scan them and manipulate them digitally. The difference in cost per picture isn't worth mentioning.

Would you rather worry about losing or damaging a $200 digital, or a $20 film camera? This may be the decisive factor for many buyers.

<i>p.s.</i> I won't even discuss disposable cameras. There isn't one of them that's worth spit.

My opinion comes from many years of professional and amateur photography. I tried digital for a while, didn't like it, and went back to film. I found that professional MF was cheaper than digital and gave results that were easily ten times better.

As for film development, do that in Paris; don't take the film home for development. Paris is filled with top-notch photo labs; photographers can get anything they want in the city (digital or film). There is no reason to bring film to Paris or to wait until one gets home to develop it, and every trip through an airport risks fogging any undeveloped film.

Modern disposable film cameras produce pretty good pictures at a very reasonable price. Point and shoot film cameras do vastly better. My tiny Yashica T5 with its Zeiss optics still gives astonishing results, especially for slides.

Anyone who wonders if AGA knows whereof he speaks, start here:

http://www.atkielski.com/PhotoGallery/default.html

Well apologies to Anthony. Your photos are fantastic.
Anthony, I would suggest that if your experiences with digital cameras has not progressed since the CoolPix technology as your website suggests, that there have been significant advances since the 1998 technology. Maybe it is time to take another kick at the cat.
Personally I have just added the Minolta digital body to my collection so now I can use all those lenses for both digital and film.

Anthony!! Those photographs are fantastic. All I can say is wow.

I really think we are confusing two things; Point &amp; Shoot (P&amp;S) vs SLR and Film vs Digital.

There are P&amp;S cameras in both Film &amp; Digital.

The lowest level are the P&amp;S.
Then come the &quot;Prosumer&quot;.
Then the SLR group. (Entry ---&gt; Pro).

I've seen the results from the latest high-end digital cameras (with digital, it's easy to download exactly what each camera produces from the Web), and I'm still not impressed. I can get breathtaking results from film at far lower cost. I can make a wall-sized enlargement of some photos I've taken on film that still show razor-sharp detail up close, and the equipment that did it still cost less than a single professional DSLR body.

Film is a lot more trouble to go to, but if you know what you are doing and you have the patience to deal with it, the results are better. In the past, I've been burned by digital when I happened to take shots that were exceptional from an artistic standpoint and I wanted to do more with them. It was then that I found out that digital doesn't provide much headroom for doing more. Since then, I've shot film instead.

If you want to see how far film can go, visit:

http://www.gigapxl.org

Those images are 600 times better than the best digital SLRs. But you don't have to be that extreme. You can get images 10-20 times superior to digital with less capital investment by shooting film. Indeed, you can do even better than that at a similar price if you have the patience.

If you're travelling with someone, another option is for one of you to take a digital and the other to take a film camera. That way, you get the advantages of each, and cover the risk that something goes wrong with one system or other other (e.g. I can take photos when my husband's camera battery dies; he takes photos when I run out of film and we've got a back-up in case something nasty happens to the film or in the processing).

This discussion about film vs digital is really getting pedantic. I suggest that before you run out and buy a camera, hit the web and then ask anyone at a local camera store. Although Anthony takes absolutely beautiful pictures, professional quality even, his presentation is neither honest or fair.
1. When he talks 600x better with film, he is talking &quot;large format film&quot;. Folks this is not your 35mm. This is film that is 4&quot;x5&quot; minimum, at least 16 times larger than 35 mm. None of us have one of those cameras, nor are we about to buy one.
2. Point and shoot is available in film or digital for less than $100. Most (if not all) digital cameras will behave as point and shoot.
3. Unless you are planning to enlarge your photos to greater than 8&quot;x10&quot; you won't notice a quality difference. Read the research.
4. Film IS better for landscapes. For travel photography, digital is the way to go.
5. In the hands of most travelers, digital will perform better. Throw away your Brownie Hawkeye.
End of discussion from my part. Play fair and be honest Anthony.
Ask the experts.

In the hands of most travellers, it's a wonder they can even get a photo with digital. Digital cameras are extremely complicated; film point-and-shoot cameras are very simple by comparison. And digital cameras require a computer at some point; the only other options are to just look at the tiny image on the screen until the memory runs out, or go to a lab and have the images printed (which is exactly what you'd do with film, at a much lower price).

Most travellers want to record a moment visually, as simply as possible. Film does that very well, and cheaply.

Most of the success of digital cameras is due to marketing hype and the bandwagon effect of new gadgets, not any inherent advantages to the process.

OK. You sucked me back in. Anthony you are not up to date on your digital technology.
1. You get the images downloaded on a CD ($6), less effort than film and can be done at a kiosk in a couple of minutes.
2. This CD can be shown on a TV with most DVD players. No magic here.
3. Many TV's (my daughter's 2 year old Sony)now have a slot where the memory card from the camera can be inserted and the images viewed on the TV.
4. Many computer printers come with slots which take the memory cards.
5. You can buy photo printers for about $100 that take the memory cards, the images can be edited and the picture printed WITHOUT being attached to a computer. Some people take these on holiday.
6. I know of no up to date digital camera that cannot be set up (at the store by the salesperson if desired) to be simply point and shoot.
So your statement,
&quot;And digital cameras require a computer at some point; the only other options are to just look at the tiny image on the screen until the memory runs out, or go to a lab and have the images printed (which is exactly what you'd do with film, at a much lower price)&quot; is simply NOT TRUE.

I was one of the last holdouts. I knew that at some point i would go digital. However, what I wanted was rather specific.

A good sensor and at least 8 megapixels in an upper level amateur package. I got that with the Canon 350XT.

I bought the body only and use it with the lens from my previous Canon elan7e film camera.

robjame disputes many of Anthony assertions.

However, what if digital takes a bit of time to master. What if you really should have a computer to get the most out of the photos you take.

We are not dummies.
We are all on this board and many, many others as well.
We all plan complicated trips and most of us make it there and back and even manager to enjoy what we did correctly and what we did incorrectly.

A good digital camera (current US prices of about $250 for a 5 megapixel camera) can be as complicated or simple as you want to make it.

That's the beauty of it. You can start off in auto mode and learn to get more out of it.

I used to like Kodak ASA200 film. Then I went to New York at the end of November and at 4PM could take properly exposed shots.

I switched to Fuji ASA400 film.

Once you put a roll of film in the camera, seldom will anybody remove it in mid-stream to replace it with another type of film.

As I mentioned, I wanted a camera with a good sensor.

My Canon XT has just that. I can change &quot;film&quot; on the fly as the light changes during the day.

I can be up before the sun and shoot at ISO800, then switch to ISO100 or 200 during the sunlight times of day and then switch to ISI1600 for night shots.

Does a Newbie have to do that? Absolutely not. But there's no doubt anybody whose done what most of us on this board have done can learn with a bit of practice.

All it takes is spending a bit of time and learning to understand the theory. You don't have to become a pro to get better.

Does anybody wonder why Kodak is bankrupt and even they have gone into digital in a bit way?

- - -
I live in South Florida. Right after Hurricane Wilma passed through here I put a roll of film (didn't have my digital yet) in my camera. I went out to record the damage within 5 minutes of our house.

I had to shoot a whole roll before processing (didn't have to finish it really). I wasn't going to put another roll in just to get one or two more shots. Then I waited for power to come back and got the film developed. Then I was able to see the results.

I would have liked more convenience.

Myer, with tongue in cheek and sorrow for your hurricane damage, get a phone!!
Now, everyone has told Anthony out of date his conclusions about digital are but the only reason it matters is that he is spewing it out for people to be scared off. Indeed, digital is even more point and shoot than a film camera.
I think there is one item about using lenses from SLRs with digital SLR. As I understand it there is a slight problem with the focal length of film lenses with the digital bodies. If I ever get my Pentax, I'm going to sure try it but apparently some of the image is cropped. I know an expert or techie can explain that much better.
Heavens is long gone now, I think. I hope she comes back to tell us what she did.

I agree wholeheartedly with Myer and robjane. Modern tech. has given us the option with digital to go with a simple 4 mp point and shoot or something far more complex. I just brought my 8mp Panasonic Fz30 to Africa and was really impressed with the ease of using this all automatic or fully manual with settings in between camera. It was a total nobrainer to use on the auto. settings. If I didn't want to do my own editing which I did do, I would have just put the card into the printer slot and downloaded onto a cd or dvd and brought it to the nearby pharmacy - can't get any easier than that.
I used manual SLR's for years until I found something superior enough to make the change. Those tiny (smaller than a pack of cigs.) 4mp point and shoots would suit most people perfectly and with ease.

p.s. there is a differance between optical zoom and digital zoom. Newer and better qual. dig. cameras have optical zoom which is superior to digital zoom. Dig. zoom however is ok for lots of typical applications though.

Totally disagree about digital zoom. It is a marketing gimmick to make you think you can do something that you can't. All it does is drop the resolution so you think you are &quot;zooming&quot;. If a good sharp picture is not needed, then digital zoom &quot;may&quot; fulfill a use.
Pay absolutely NO attention to digital zoom &quot;capability&quot;. The answer to being able to &quot;zoom&quot; with the small digitals is to have LOTS of MP and then you can manipulate the image to simulate that you had a 12X zoom. Slightly more bulky digitals now are coming out with image stablilization and a good optical zoom. The ImSt is essential for the higher zooms to hold the camera through the lag period, which, while it has been improved, is still something to be dealt with.

Take the digital and review the instructions on the plane if you are stressed right now. Get your mind right and apply yourself - really not that hard.