[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Originally Posted by possmann

digi all the way - film will be dead in about 10 years - you heard it hear first

I say five for 95% of general consumers, and three for 80% of enthusiasts.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Originally Posted by possmann

digi all the way - film will be dead in about 10 years - you heard it hear first

I say five for 95% of general consumers, and three for 80% of enthusiasts.

[backpackerx]

Originally Posted by David Prahl

I am a major supporter of digital photography - don't get me wrong! But for it to really replace film, it needs to be very easy and very cheap (two things that technology usually isn't).

But it already is. 1 roll of 35mm film $4. Developing $4. (being generous, usually $5 to $6) that's $8 for 24 pictures and half of them or more you will never look at again or throw away because of exposure, subject matter, framing problems etc. I estimated I spent $8 for every 10 photos I kept.
With my digital camera, I have no film cost and only keep and print the ones I want. You can get 4x6's printed for $.25 anywhere. That's only $2.50 for every 10 prints as opposed to $8. A film camera with my digital's features costs close to $200. My digital was $300. It takes less than 20 rolls of film to negate the cost factor of a regular 3.2 digital camera that will print nice 8x10's which is as big as most people every print.

And easy? I can point and shoot and immediately view in Auto mode--much easier than with my SLR.

[David Prahl]

But the initial cost of a nice digital camera is much higher than a film camera. You need to spend a good $50-$100 to get a decent memory card as well. I have a *free* 35mm camera that takes better shots than an Olympus 3 megapixel.

Again - I'm talking about "digital photography for everyone" like the topic says. I love digital cameras, but they need to change to overtake film.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Not to mention problems like flaky AF, dealing with batteries, etc. How about the families who use cameras like 4 times a year, using at most 6-8 rolls of film?

[backpackerx]

I guess what I'm saying is for those who want a decent film camera with features that most digitals have. You'd need certain program modes, a 35mm to 105mm zoom, and other features. That's where my $200 to $300 comparison was based.
You are absolutely right though, if all you want is a point and shoot no zoom camera to make pictures then a disposable camera will look as nice as a 3.2 megapixel cam. I've actually seen some remarkable clear, distortion free pics from $5 disposables! 8O what do they come with these days, zenon coated carl zeiss lenses?

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Nah, it's just much better film and film developing techniques and processes.

Plus you probably are looking at 4x6s, which are pretty forgiving.

[Suhit Gupta]

I think it is still a bit pre-mature to say that film is dead, though it does appear that they are fighting a losing battle. Digital cameras capable of 14-18MP are fast approaching the quality of film, as that is about the resolution of the grain on the film itself. OTOH, these cameras are not cheap so let's see how this whole thing plays out.

Suhit

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Digital offers quite a few advantages over film. It might lose out in extremely high resolution landscape photos, but how often do we print to 20x30?

[backpackerx]

I read in my Popular Science March issue today that as of 2004, digital cameras outsell film cameras. The graph from 1999 to 2005 looks like an X with digital strongly on the rise and film sharply declining.

[Suhit Gupta]

But the question is - when will that graph level off? Or are film cameras truly headed towards extinction?

Suhit