What is the advantages of using traditional cameras compare to digital cameras?

Question

the disadvantages of digital cameras

Answer 1

Regarding the extra features of digital cameras, they can do everything a film camera can and more. If you don´t want to use some of the extra stuff on a digital camera... don´t. You don´t have to. And if you don´t want to mess around with image files on a computer, take the camera/ memory card to the drug store and order prints there. So I´d hesitate to give film cameras the edge for simplicity. Digital can be as easy or as complicated as you want to make it.

Here´s what I do perceive to be the advantages of film.

1) Cost

Cost is an advantage if you don´t shoot much. With film cameras you pay for rolls of film and again for development .With digital you pay a premium up front and get all your ´negatives´ for free. The break-even point depends on the kind of camera you use. With a cheap point & shoot, you start saving money after just a few hundred pictures. With a $3000 dSLR vs. a $500 used film SLR however, it takes thousands of pictures to justify the higher price of a digital camera.

Low-cost film cameras are also attractive in risky environments where your might damage / lose your camera (like eh, on a rock climbing trip)

2) Dynamic range

Digital has caught up with 35mm film in terms of resolution (megapixels) but film still captures a little bit more dynamic range - simply put, the extreme edges towards complete black and complete white. A digital camera tends to clip very bright objects and display them as pure white when a film camera would still hold a little detail (eg. with bright clouds in the background of your shot). This is not something that would bother 99.9% of casual photographers, but it´s there.

3) Viewfinder

With SLR cameras, affordable digital versions have a relatively small viewfinder compared to their film counterparts. Digital versions also don´t have a split prism viewfinder (where 2 half-circles overlap during focusing) This can make film SLR cameras more pleasant to use, particularly if you want to focus the lens manually.

Digital point & shoot digital cameras often come without a viewfinder at all, and only offer an LCD screen - these are not much fun in bright light.

4) Batteries

Film cameras - older ones - have the advantage that they can operate (almost and even entirely) without batteries. Normally, recharging isn´t a hassle - no more than inserting a new roll of film every 36 pictures with a film camera - but if you´re doing a 5 week jungle trek, recharging can become a real issue.

Yeah, I´m stretching. Personally, I´ve traveled across the word with a digital camera and I´ve managed just fine with a universal adapter and just one spare battery.

5) Responsiveness

With digital point & shoot cameras, there´s always shutter lag - a delay between pushing the shutter button and actually taking the picture. This is usually about 0.1 second - just enough to ruin action shots. Film cameras are instantaneous.

With digital SLR cameras, there is no shutter lag, so no disadvantage there.

6) Storage

With film, you can keep negatives in a shoe box for decades. With digital, you have to keep checking your CD/ DVD/ hard disk backups every few years.

That´s all I can think of...

It´s enough, I think, to make a case that using film can have real advantages.

Answer 2

digital have noise..

film is a better pik.............

Answer 3

I enjoy the simplicity of my Minolta 35mm cameras. I usually shoot in Aperture Preferred because I like a lot of depth of field. After 37 years, I look at a scene, try a couple of different compositions, make an exposure and know I have it.

I've no need for 20 different "scene modes" - my eyes and brain know what I want to accomplish and my command of the camera and lens allows me to do what I want.

IMO digital cameras have given people the idea that all they have to do is spend the money for the camera and point it at a subject and they'll take great pictures. There is (supposedly) no need to learn about composition, light, f-stops, shutter speeds and ISO. Just use an editing program and turn a mediocre picture into an average one.

Many people talk about how cheap digital photography is since you don't have to buy film and have it processed. I often wonder if they think digital cameras are free. Knowing myself as well as I do, I would want a full frame sensor DSLR. Then I'd want lenses comparable to the ones I use for my 35mm film cameras. Of course a dedicated flash would be required. My expense would be close to $15,000 - not a wise investment just to continue the hobby I've enjoyed for 37 years. I'd rather leave the money in my retirement account.