film vs. digital

[KJ Smith]

Originally Posted by RT_Panther

You are making unsubstantiated statements without any empirical evidence.

Sorry, I thought the "and more" was common knowledge.

And you can.....

Change ISO anytime,

Shoot in Raw, change exposure, change from color to B&W,

Check exposure with the histogram,

Delete unwanted images,

I actually think the digital image looks better, but that's a personal choice.

You can make a digi image look like film, if you choose

Now, that should give you an idea as to what " and more" means.

Note, this is not a complete list, nor will I try to provide one.

If you need more info you can try a search of..... 35mm vs DSLR

[RT_Panther]

Originally Posted by KJ Smith

Sorry, I thought the "and more" was common knowledge.

And you can.....

Change ISO anytime,

Shoot in Raw, change exposure, change from color to B&W,

Check exposure with the histogram,

Delete unwanted images,

I actually think the digital image looks better, but that's a personal choice.

You can make a digi image look like film, if you choose

Now, that should give you an idea as to what " and more" means.

Note, this is not a complete list, nor will I try to provide one.

If you need more info you can try a search of..... 35mm vs DSLR

No need for sublime insults towards me since it appears to me that a simple question by me upset you.

Now then, for the most part, I personally categorize these as the differences but I definitely agree with you in that the histogram, RAW, & ISO manouverability are distinct advantages.

Again, no need to throw out insults but when someone makes a blanket statement, I will question it

[KJ Smith]

No insults intended.

It never occurred to me that someone who uses a DSLR would need the versatility of the camera explained to them.


It is that versatility that makes a DSLR shine.

Several of those points were made by the other posters in this thread.

[RT_Panther]

Originally Posted by KJ Smith

No insults intended.

It never occurred to me that someone who uses a DSLR would need the versatility of the camera explained to them.
It is that versatility that makes a DSLR shine.

Several of those points were made by the other posters in this thread.

No insults? (As I read your above post)
Please..........

So if I understand you correctly, you're saying that versatility equates to better? Fair enough then

[KJ Smith]

Originally Posted by RT_Panther

So if I understand you correctly, you're saying that versatility equates to better? Fair enough then

Now, if you check post #22, I asked you to to describe any way a 35mm out performs a DSLR.

I don't think there are any.

[RT_Panther]

Originally Posted by KJ Smith

Now, if you check post #22, I asked you to to describe any way a 35mm out performs a DSLR.

And again, I go back to my first post in this thread where I stated neither is better, just different. Why force me to state something different than what I've already said from post one? (That neither is better).

There are advantages & benefits, yes. Some of these are what you've mentioned, histogram, ISO flexibility, etcetera but again, these in my view, are advantages.

Ansel Adams did just fine without your definition of "better' equiipment

[KJ Smith]

Originally Posted by RT_Panther

Ansel Adams did just fine without your definition of "better' equiipment

I never said great images couldn't be made with a lesser camera.

I am pretty sure AA's skill set was a bit better than most folks.