Digital or film?

[alcina]

If you are a wide angle photographer and you like to have the sun in your underwater pictures, then choose film.

Sorry, don't agree. Do agree that film/slide has some advantages in certain situations. But the tradeoffs aren't worth it, imho.

And if you're going to be shooting sunballs the vast majority of the time, there are the newer dslrs that do a quite respectible job. Personally I don't know anyone who truly shoots that type of image so much more than other types. And you could try to find a Nikonos for that purpose but have a digital for everything else.

I just wouldn't be happy with the limits that non-digital has.

And for a brand new diver/photographer, this isn't going to be much of an issue.

 

[shark_tamer]

Underwater I shoot digital .... not by choice :shakehead :shakehead

Topside I'm still a dinosaure ... no digital camera beats cellulose

 

[beautybelow]

I agree that the sun in these photos may come out better with my old niknos five, to me that's a minor detail as far as the advantages of today's digital goes. I shoot up all the time, just to break things up.

 

[bladephotog]

Underwater I shoot digital .... not by choice :shakehead :shakehead

Topside I'm still a dinosaure ... no digital camera beats cellulose

Sorry but I disagree. That's waaaay too broad of a statement. I was slow to switch to digital for my personal work. Professionally I had to switch to digital in 1999. Didn't like it at first. But I quit shooting film in 2004. Anyting I could do with film I can do with digital. The reverse, for me, isn't true.

And for the average, amateur underwater photographer there is really no reason to shoot film. Unless you want to spend a lot of money on film and processing. And you really would rather shoot 36 pix per dive instead of a few gigs worth.

 

[shark_tamer]

Sorry but I disagree. That's waaaay too broad of a statement.

How about a head to head competition between you and I.

We put side to side your best " digitally printed " picture against one of my " fiber base gallery quality " that I spent 3 hours to print in my darkroom !!!!

 

[bladephotog]

How about a head to head competition between you and I.

We put side to side your best " digitally printed " picture against one of my " fiber base gallery quality " that I spent 3 hours to print in my darkroom !!!!

At high noon at the OK Corral? Are we talking my DSLR against your 35mm or are you going to go all large format on me? Nine out of 10 people attending a gallery show wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a print from a DSLR and a print from 35mm film.

Then as soon as we're done with this test let's do another. We'll each shoot the same subject, you with film, me with digital, and we'll see who can get a photo to a publisher faster.

And this is my point. No one camera will do everything better than anything else. They're just tools. Own them all and use the best available for the job if you can. If not, then own the best, jack-of-all-trades, tool that you can.

I'm curious, why do you HAVE to shoot digital UW? I switched to digital when my boss handed me digital cameras and took away my film cameras. I continued to shoot film with my personal cameras on special projects until 2004 when I realized it just wasn't worth it. I finally sold the last of them.

I believe the OP's question about durability has been answered. Any camera is going to suffer if flooded. But digital, or specifically all electronic cameras, will suffer a worse fate if flooded. But I'll put my EOS 1D MKIIn's up against ANY camera in a rainstorm. They have over 70 o-rings and gaskets installed. They can so much rain I rarely bother with my rain covers anymore.

 

[Gilligan]

I love when this subject of digital versus film raises it's head every now and then on this forum. It gets everyones blood flowing.

Film is dead.

Get over it.

No one in their right mind would buy a film camera for amateur underwater photography with the current available low cost technology of digital cameras.

Even an old dog like me can learn new tricks

 

[bladephotog]

I love when this subject of digital versus film raises it's head every now and then on this forum. It gets everyones blood flowing.

Film is dead.

Get over it.

No one in their right mind would buy a film camera for amateur underwater photography with the current available low cost technology of digital cameras.

Even an old dog like me can learn new tricks

While I don't think film is dead just yet, I wholeheartedly agree with the rest.

 

[LindaBluedolphin]

In the marketing life-cycle I am what would be referred to as a "lager" always way behind the times. With that said, I was a die hard in the film camp, however I began to have problems with the body of my SLR and decided it was not worth getting fixed so I decided to go digital.

I have to say I am now kicking myself for not making the move sooner. I use an Oly PS-350 for my underwater shots, and a Sony DSC H2 for topside. I have gotten more decent shots in the few times I have tried UW Digital then in 10-12 years of film. As for the topside, now instead of taking one or two shots and hoping for the best, I take 30 shots of the same thing and dump the ones that are not quite what I wanted.

However I do believe it is a personal choice.

 

[Buoyant1]

36 photos TOPS vs..100-200+ per dive?

Digital will win every time!

I shoot like a fiend with the digital and figure that SOMETHING will come out (no pro by any stretch of the imagination, and I have no desire to do it pro..this is just for my PURE enjoyment!)

The pics that are in my gallery are with the first time I got to use the camera and I was still figuring out how to use it. I haven't had a "camera-worthy" dive since, so nothing to compare as I figured it out..you don't WANT to see the pics I've taken with my cruddy film camera!