ggenova64

The prices between brands are about the same. I prefer Sony brand because they are full frame. Panasonic makes great Mirrorless Cameras, that are reasonable priced.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

There are things that can be accomplished with film that digital is hopelessly incapable of doing. Likewise, there are things that can be done with digital that cannot be accomplished with film. Two different but related worlds.
--Bob

mgoldfield

Ditto!

Tomfl101 Loc: Mount Airy, MD

Those that believe film produces better quality than the latest digital cameras are the same people that believe vinyl records have better sound than hi resolution digital audio--BS. I used Hasselblad and Mamiya 6x7 cameras for over 25 years. I dabbled in large format from time to as as well and I'd put my 5D-4 canon up against any of them. If I still owned a film camera I would do a side-by-side comparison the prove it, but sadly I sold them all for virtually nothing several years ago. If someone out there still has vintage film cameras and wants to prove me wrong, by all means show us all and put the debate to rest.

gordone Loc: Red Deer AB Canada

I still shoot 35 mm and medium format but only for black and white because I do my own developing and printing. Color film development and printing is getting hard to get decent quality without sending it away. I have a Canon 5DS-R that blows you away with the detail you can get with 50.6 MPix. One of my film cameras is a Canon 7N which uses the same lenses and is probably the best deal around for used film cameras. The 7N was made at the end of the film era and a lot of people that bought them only put a couple of rolls of film through them before switching to digital. I bought a mint condition one with lens and factory battery grip for $60. I bought a couple more for $80 ea. They have autofocus and all the goodies like a DSLR but record it on film. Easiest film camera there is to use. Good luck and don't be afraid to keep using film.

chem

I have used, developed and enlarged my own film for 50 years before film became hard to get. (Note that film and processing chemicals are readily available now.) There is no question that, with an exceptional lens, you can obtain better resolution with film compared to digital. Film is exposed on a molecular basis (color film) or very fine grain (pan X) and has no regular pattern to worry about. Those of you who are a little older can remember when lens reviews indicate diffraction limited f-stops (often around f-8). With digital your resolution is limited by the number of pixels/inch. I have not seen a review where they mention diffraction limited resolution.
However, the resolution you need depends on the size of the final image, so my D850 suffices on my printer with 13X19" prints, even after cropping. If you were going to print a mural for a wall for a single image (say 20X30') that might be viewed up close, choose film (and probably a view camera).

The physics will not change until digital sensors have close packed pixels in the nanometer range.

anotherview Loc: California

Question: "My question is, are digital cameras of today capable of taking pictures comparable to the best film cameras of not so distant past?"

Answer: Yes. Not me but the experts say so. They say digital surpassed film photography years ago. This assertion typically brings out the diehard film photographers with their two rationales for seeing the reverse, that film tops digital photography.

Concern: "I was afraid of the new technology and I could not decide on the camera to purchase."

Reply No. 1: Consider renting to try a camera before making a purchase decision; of course, this option requires a lens to go with the camera you rent, so you may wish to consider going with a general purpose lens like a 24-105mm during your evaluation.

Reply No. 2: Your fear of the advance in photography to digital means of doing it remains understandable. Digital does present a daunting learning curve; yet, I believe your existing experience in photography will speed your learning of digital. After all, digital photography rests on the shoulders of the long reign of film photography.

One good reason to switch to digital photography others usually omit to mention: Digital photography gives the photographer way more control over his photographs.

Good luck.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

"Better" is a relative term, highly dependent on the equipment and skill of the photographer and also on the opinion of the viewer. If it gets to the point where you have to use scientific instruments to measure the differences, then the differences don't matter.

I love my D750, and the price has dropped considerably since it was introduced.

Comparison sites (digital only)

(Reviews) https://www.youtube.com/user/TheCameraStoreTV/videos
http://www.cameradecision.com/
http://cameras.reviewed.com/
http://camerasize.com/
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
http://snapsort.com/compare
http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/cameras?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=mainmenu&utm_medium=text&ref=mainmenu

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Two things come to my mind when talking film vs digital: the convenience of digital and its wider dynamic range. The technology in a digital camera is simply awesome and so is also what is packed with editing programs.
We can do with digital what we never thought could be possible with film. The dynamic range of digital but especially with the new cameras surpasses film. The behaviour of digital when it comes to exposure is very similar to slide film and it is important to keep in mind that the exposure should be based on an important bright area or a neutral tonality.

Using film the colors are usually different to digital because they have different technologies. Colors with digital depend on the firmware of the camera while with film the color is built-in. Colors can be twisted with digital but only digitizing the negatives colors can be manipulated. Talking about colors, the first generation of Nikon colors from using a CCD as a sensor to me were better than colors of today's cameras with CMO sensors. There are exceptions because not all CMO sensors are built equal.

Do not be afraid to embrace the digital technology. A short time reading the camera manual, experimenting and shooting will bring you up to date in digital in a very short time. Learning to use editing programs takes a little more time but nothing that could not be mastered to perfection.

If you have the opportunity take a good look at a digital enlargement of a file, lets say at a 20x30 size or so and if good technique was used you should be able to see the resolution and clarity of a digital file where the absence of grain is one of its most important characteristics.

You do not need a top Nikon camera and as a matter of fact there are excellent and reasonably priced refurb or second hand cameras that will serve your purpose. Technology goes so fast that a camera of only 2 years ago is considered today as obsolete. Nothing wrong with those cameras and they can be bought for a fraction of what was paid when new.

I am not a professional photographer, my comments are based on what I know and my personal experience.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

If you scan film to a TIFF you can have the best of both worlds - the highlight protection of film, contrast control with B&W plus the ease of editing and printing a computer-based image. That becomes more important as you move up to medium and large format.

wishaw

10 years ago A 24mp digital is equivalent to 35mm film so going to 50mp should be better than film.
Then there is film processing. There are good labs and bad labs so if you go to the bad lab you will get poor pictures.
Then there is the software. You can do a lot more on a digital than a negative
Into b and w. Get silver efex and select you favorite b and w film and see the grain.Same with color.
I spent 30 years processing film in tanks and dishes. I still do the occasional roll of film.
I love digital.
Life is short.Get a digital camera and get out and have fun

anotherview Loc: California

Key point here, and often overlooked in such discussion: "with film the color is built-in." Put another way, color film photography relies on an engineered color for its rendition.

Digital photography allows for any color look the photographer wishes to present.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

I too shot the F4 and a Hasselblad. I still remember fighting digital with all my sole. After selling all of my Hasselblad equipment was sold to Europe (thank you Europe) I turned to digital.
The biggest advantage to digital in my opinion is post processing. No longer am I standing over developer, stop, and fix bath's doing hundreds of 8X10's for rodeo's and class reunion's. I do wildlife photography and I can safely say I get better, sharper results with digital. Hand's down. BUT, like I said, I can get those results through post processing, which is a BIG advantage for digital.
That, and now I don't have to wait to develop and print to see if I got the shot right, I can see it right after I take it and make any adjustments I want. Now, I am very happy with digital and will never go back to the development side.
Good luck and keep on shooting until the end.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Here is the problem, which is not insurmountable if you meter carefully.

With digital you can expose up to three stops above middle gray. Anything brighter will be overexposed - blown out and blocked up. In Zone System terms that means you can capture Zones V through VIII (if you shoot raw and recover the highlights) but not Zone IX. Digital's additional dynamic range (DR) is all below middle gray but it gets noisy as you reach Zone I or darker. The leaves you with only about seven usable exposure Zones - II through VIII.

Film does not blow out in Zone IX. Increased exposure is recorded with decreasing contrast so you can recover highlight information from as high as Zone XII. You can go even farther with B&W and compensating development. That's actually a lot more usable DR for film.

Nevertheless, dynamic range or resolution are only two of the factors that can be compared. I would not chose either medium based on a single comparison. There are lots of other reasons to prefer either digital or film over the other.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Again you literally show where my initial critical comment was precisely correct (i.e., between 30-50 lp/mm is obviously greater than the claimed 30 lp/mm, just as I said)... and then you ignore that and claim I was wrong despite being precisly correct.

You add the usual absurd gratuitous personal insult that has to be in every article. BTW, no algebra is needed, just arithmetic!