Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Panasonic / Leica

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 22, 2005, 11:38 PM   #11
Senior Member
Charlie46227's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 295

OK, from a strictly non-professional (below 'amateur' category!) take on all this:

1) You're comparing apples to oranges. The aesthetics are different, and depending on your subject and your 'goal' one IS better than the other but it depends on the subject and look you desire. I DO love the look of a good 'real' picture, but I've also seen some digitals that I know COULDN't have looked the way they did if shot with a 'real' camera.

2) I think you could get the same shallow DOF using PS and a little work.

3) I think that 'real' cameras look more natural (generally speaking, as I've not seen very many digitals and certainly not any of the high end digitals).

4) I also prefer 'real' audio records better than audio CDs, but I'd never go back to them. I hated all the 'noise' (pops, crackle, hiss... ) more than the loss of 'continuous' sound.

5) In photgraphy, there is room for both, and I hope both survive.

Charlie46227 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23, 2005, 12:22 AM   #12
David C's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 98

I think most of my favourite shots were taken on film (Canon 35mm) - but digital just has so much versatility I rarely shoot film anymore. I would love a good DSLR - but they are still very expensive (I don't feel the entry-level DSLRs have much of an image advantage over the FZ20, so would not buy one of them yet).

Film's aestheticedge could relate to its strengths(eg dynamic range, colour depth...) or it might be that 'grain' just looks better than 'noise'.

Though I am fairly new to digital - and I suppose I might get to match my film results with digital pics eventually, as I get more used to the 'medium'... Of course in Photoshop you can also do effects that were impossible/impractical using film.

A couple of recent FZ20shotsI've taken have even had certain film-like aesthetics about them...
David C is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23, 2005, 1:59 AM   #13
Senior Member
Hiroshi's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,749

Nick, I understand your point.

If i may, as touched upon above, a similar thing happened quite a few years ago with the transition from LP's to CD's...yes CD's had greater dynamic range (Flat from 20-20,000) and no grove hiss, pops etc., but because of the inherent poor digital sampling they could not fully reproduce the ambiance (depth) of the sound-stage as well as the old LP's...even though there have been many improvements it's still partially true today and only the best and very expensive modified tubeCD players, tube preamps and amps have been able to draw out the ever elusive realism of a live performance. The music DVD with its grater capacityshows greater promise. In the same way the next generation 10 to 20+ mega-pixel cameras will further blur the differences between film and digital...and I personally can't wait for that day...I love the flexibility of digital and as long as it remains an open field for experimentation (unlike the close ended CD) the consumer will be the winner.
Hiroshi is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:29 AM.