What is the best kind of camera? Is a digital really superior to one that uses film?

I'm interested in a camera that will take high quality photographs, but one that also will not totally break the bank!=)

Thanks for your input!

I'd like to use it for taking photos that can be turned into relatively large prints, normal poster size. And for taking magazine quality photos. Do I need two different cameras?

Actually, unless you get a digital SLR, digital does NOT do better than film in low light. You might be able to get an image, but it will be filled with noise, which is way worse than film grain.

You could start with a Nikon or Canon entry level dSLR with the kit lens. You could do either of these for about $600-$700. depending on what accessories you get and memory cards.

I use digital and film. Good news, great film cameras are cheap now, pennies on the dollar. You could set yourself up with a killer film system for half the price of a mid-level digital. Of course, you'd have to pay for film and developing. Either way, it is the photographer's skill and vision that makes the image, not the camera.

Digital cameras have become better and better while prices have been dropping. I'm not a professional but I've taken a lot of pictures for publication as well as pleasure and I am thrilled with my current Kodak 5 megapixel digital. Advantages:

1. Results are visible instantly. If the shot is poor, you can re-take immediately.
2. You can download pix to your computer any time.
3. My Kodak software allows me to crop, get rid of red eye, lighten or darken exposure, re-size and do other darkroom techniques on my computer. I assume other brands have similar software.
4. One fully charged camera will take over 80 shots over a 10-day vacation in a foreign country without re-charging. A memory stick will give you even more shots.
5. You can e-mail pix and print at home. In other words, once you've paid for the camera there are no further processing charges.
6. Five megapixel camera is really high resolution, probably more than you will ever want, but even higher rez is now available and the prices keep falling.
7. You can get awesome close-ups and zoom w/o extra lenses. These cameras also come wiith video capability.

I suggest you shop Circuit City or Best Buy (whichever one has best sales associates in your area) to check out selection and prices.

You really need to be a little more specific as to what you want it for. Yes, in general digital cameras are superior to film cameras these days - unless you want to create huge poster prints. But digital cameras range from 100 to several thousand bucks. As an amateur, you should look at compact cameras. For "high quality photographs" you'd probably want an SLR camera. Also depends on what "breaks the bank" for you, of course. For a little online research, check out: www.dcresource.com/buyersguide or www.dpreview.com for in-depth reviews.

No Film is more superior in quality than digital, but digital has advantage over film. like you just have download the image to a computer, you can preview the image in camera and delete the photos that you don't want, check lighting and composition etc.

Find a Photography forum and ask this question their you are going to get a lot of BS answer here.

What you want is a Canon, They are superiour to all of the digital camera companies. Their cameras never let me down. My entire family only uses Canon because of their superiority, And to answer you 2nd camera, YES! Digital technology catches way more detail than the film. Then when you go shopping fir your camera (remember, Canon!) goto BH Photo, they sell cameras cheap and some with special kits!

Canon sites (pick your camera!)

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/contro...

Buy your camera! (BH Photo)

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controll...

Yeah

YOu need close to a 10 or 12 MP didital to do posters and magazine quality that compares to 100 or 200 speed film.

Digital, however, does better in LOW LIGHT than film

You're looking, minimum at something like a Kodak 875 ($200) or moving into the SLR realm of the Nikon 2 ($1,100+) or Canon XL Rebel (8-10MP with RAW format saves $700+).

The Nikon and Canon use 32 or 36 bit color and save in RAW format and have superior lenses. The Kodak is not bad for the price, but it will BARELY do what you want.

It might give Magazine quality, but the posters will not be as good as film

Remember FILM is 3-D (the grains go across, up and down and in THICKNESS, plus they are random, digital is 2-D across and up and down only) and they are UNIFORM.

The Kodak will look like 400 or 800 film.

BUT it will do better in low light.

100 Speed film OUT PERFORMS digital in BRIGHT SUN in both sharpness and contrast and color hues.

If you don't want to spend a lot of money, I think you will be better off with two cameras - A film SLR and a digital point and shoot. - Used film single lens reflex cameras and lenses are now very cheap - particularly cameras which have manual focus lenses. - With a film SLR and a 50mm F1.8 lens, or a 135mm F2.8 lens you can easily throw the background in your picture out of focus - something that would be difficult or impossible with a digital point and shoot. - And if you use fine grain film and a tripod, your pictures will be super sharp.