Respectfully, No.
The two best digital cameras - the Nikon DX-1 and the Canon D-30, approach
35mm transparency quality (I'll post links on the comparison). The gotcha
is that color film and B&W film exceed the capabilities of transparency
film.
Other factors:
The same Canon and Nikon use imaging devices that are smaller than 24mm x
36mm - and the effect is a 'multiplier' of about 1.4 on your lenses. Thus
what was a 35mm wide angle, now becomes a 50mm ie a stock lens!!
CCD arrays don't like 'off angle' light very much (because of the mechanics
of the surface of the CCD) - so you get significantly more color fringing at
the edges of the array than in the middle - the wider the angle of the
shot - the more noticable (check out the reviews on
).
Ok Price, Lets see, I can buy an Elan 7 that will do what the D-30 does.
Cost delta -$2500
Now the D-30 also needs storage, which adds between $200-$500 in cost
(remmember a "slide equiv" takes at least 18mBytes, so a 256mByte Memory
card is only about 14 or 15shots)
You also need display technology - I assume you have a PC since you are
writing this. For MOST folks though, their PC isn't a 128mByte 30Gig
Pentium Class box. Which means they probably have to spend betwee
$500-$1000 to get their machine Photo capable. And if you don't have a
photo capable machine you need Adobe Photoshop or equiv. ($500)
OK so you want to print. Well you can do what Arthur suggests, but not all
photo-stores have digital printing solutions.
You can use any one of the online services, but they charge you shipping and
you end up paying on the order of $0.50/5x7
Or you can buy your own PhotoCapable printer - the low end of the Bar there
is $500 (Epson 1280).
OK so your total cost delta from film is $2500 +$500+$500+ (maybe $1000)
Total - between $3500 and $4500 for a film equivilant digital system.
Locally CostCo charges $4.00 to develop and print a 36exp color film roll OR
PhotoWorks.com (nee SeattleFilmWorks) will charge you $7.00 for the same
service and give you a replacement roll.
$3500/7 = 500. So the break even point is 500 rolls of film (not counting
the storage cost on CDR media).
So the operative question really is:
How long will it take you to shoot 500 rolls of film?
AND
Is the convenience factor (because that is all that digital really offers -
instant gratification and the ability to "change film speed" mid-roll),
worth that extra price?
For photojournalism, the answer is a resounding Yes.
For folks doing studio set-pieces at company parties? Yes
For average Joe who shoots 4-5 rolls/year? No way.
For the average amateur? Maybe.
I spent a week shooting with digital. It wasn't compelling enough to give
up film.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Derek Clarke" <derek_c@cix.co.uk>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Cc: <derek_c@cix.co.uk>
Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2001 2:15 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Review on Canon FS4000/film is dead
> Everything except the "very expensive" part is solved already.
>
> Also cost comparisons between film and digital that imply thousands of 6x4
> prints are misleading in the extreme.
>
> With film, a print is necessary simply to see the picture. The digital
> picture doesn't need to be printed at all unless you want to make a
> display print for hanging up.
>
> mgduncan@esper.com (Mike Duncan) wrote:
>
> > >From
> > >>
> > >"The CanoScan FS4000US will be my last 35mm scanner. It's more than
> > adequate
> > >to capture the detail in my images going back to the 1960's. Digital
> > cameras
> > >are improving so fast that I doubt I'll be using 35mm after 2002.
> > Current
> > >digital cameras approach 35mm in quality. There's plenty of debate on
> > >whether they've surpassed 35mm already, but they certainly will by
> > 2002. Any
> > >digital camera you buy today will be obsolete in a year or two, but
> > you have
> > >to weigh the cost of the camera against the savings in film and
> > processing.
> > >The scale is tipping ever more strongly towards digital. Film sales
> > will
> > >soon start dropping like a rock; prices will go up and less popular
> > films
> > >will disappear. It's over for film."
> >
> > I used a digital camera at work 2 yrs ago, and the biggest problems
> > were:
> > It ate batteries.
> > It didn't focus close enough.
> > It was awkward to use.
> > It was slow viewing and transfering images.
> > You've only got one effective sensor speed.
> > It was very expensive.
> >
> > I believe it will take a few years before the quality and cost issues
> > equal
> > film. It costs $7 to develop negatives and get double 4x6 prints. How
> > much does it cost to print digital prints? At least $1 each for 4x6.
> > Film
> > is much cheaper. The scale is still strongly tipping towards film.
> >
> >
> >
> > Mike Duncan
> >
> >
> >
