Film vs Dig.

[jmohns]

Hello all,
    I am wondering if anybody has noticed any quality diffs between Digital and film camera pictures. I have a 35 mm and am looking into a DC500 digital camera from sea to sea. I have had some good luck in the areas that I dive but don't want to fork out the cash for a better camera if it will not improve my photos any. I dive in 10' to 40' freshwater vis. Thanks for your help.

[ethanb]

I don't think you'll see much of a difference in image quality from 35 mm to digital from a DC500, unless you're planning on trying to put stuff in magazines or do significant enlargements.  Especially with the visibility you get around here, you're typically more limited by water quality than image resolution.

The difference you will notice is that the ability to shoot 100 or more photos during a dive and to get instantaneous feedback will give you significantly more freedom to experiment and improve your photography skills while you're diving.  You'll be able to try many variations of camera settings and composition until you find something you like, and you'll know right-away when something isn't working.

Ethan

[jmohns]

good point, I had not thought of it that way....... Thanks

[jasondbaker]

I just bought a digital camera (fuji e900) and housing a couple months ago.  I couldn't imagine using film.  I have taken almost 200 shots in a single day with only a dozen keepers.  Now some of that is due to my inexperience. But as Ethan said we typically dive in challenging conditions.  Another nice thing about digital shots is that you can post-process the images using software like photoshop to correct the colors.  If you are looking in the $500 range something like the Olympus SP-350 might be a better bet. 

[Swimjim]

Since I bought my Cannon, my Nikonos II's have been gathering dust.  The advantages of a Nikonos over digital is indestructibility,  can go deeper and even you miss that eye lash on the o-ring and experience a flood, you can dry it out and your back in business. 
    The advantages of digital as previously mentioned are just too overwhelming and have greatly changed the photography industry as a whole.  I read somewhere that three major camera manufacturers were no longer going to make cameras.  I forget all three, but Minolta was one of them.  I have alot of their gear and have been using it since the early seventies.
    From a novice standpoint though, you can't take too many photo's and digital allows you to do that in spades.  Seeing your results right now greatly reduces the learning curve.  The on board electronics lets you forget about exposure to some extent so you can concentrate on composition.  Do yourself a favor and read up on "making" photographs.
      With my Cannon I can do video too.  It allows me to do three minute clips which I can baste together afterwards with the computer.  This winter, when the snow is blowing, I'll be able to take a tour of the Northerner, the Byron, the Niagara and the McMillian and Pitz dredge to name a few. 
      So, I would go ahead and invest in digital.  I would be willing to bet that ten years from now film cameras will be extinct.

Jim

[voodooconstant]

go take a look at the forums over at wetpixel.com.  Theres a lot of information there (and some industry pros).  You'll be amazed at the pictures too. 

[Chris H]

Jim,
Which Canon do you have?

[Swimjim]

I have a Powershot A520 with a cannon case and a slave flash.  It could use a wider angle lense, but works really well otherwise.  I'm no spring chicken to photography being a serious amateur for thirty years, and this camera really works well. I'm really impressed.  Very good bang for the buck.

Jim