Nikon N55

[Tarzanman]

i can't wait for an explanation of what you mean here. film still reigns superior to digital.

Lol. MF and LF and maybe you have an argument. 35mm? No way. Besides the ridiculous costs involved with buying + developing film (and storing negatives)...there's also having to recalculate your exposure settings every time your light changes. ...and of course swapping rolls after you've shot your 24 or 36 frames per roll of film.

When you say superior, do you really mean 'takes more time, effort, and money to get good results'?

[james]

Lol. MF and LF and maybe you have an argument. 35mm? No way. Besides the ridiculous costs involved with buying + developing film (and storing negatives)...there's also having to recalculate your exposure settings every time your light changes. ...and of course swapping rolls after you've shot your 24 or 36 frames per roll of film.

When you say superior, do you really mean 'takes more time, effort, and money to get good results'?

of course i don't mean 35mm.

recalculate your exposure? you mean in that there is no aperture priority or auto mode? carry a meter.

and no. i mean superior in IQ, size ("megapixels") - large format can range from 200 "megapixels" to 800 "megapixels". most people don't do large format printing, most people don't print larger than 4x6 or 5x7, and lots of people never print at all. so with that said, megapixel count really doesn't matter past 6-10 MP.

film is still superior in many ways. for print and advertising, its the best - for now.

but i do like digital....