Digital vs. film cameras

What are some of the main differences between using a digital camera as opposed to a film camera? What are some of the benefits and disadvantages to both?

 

Mod Note - this has been moved to Beginner Forum and some comments have been edited to reflect that, please stay on topic addressing the beginner's question

Edited November 20, 2020 by William Michael

Please advise if this is a photography class assignment.

Personally, for me, the attraction of film is that I can shoot, process, make prints, without ever touching a computer. I shoot film for myself, to relax. When I need results, I pick up a digital camera.

 

Film for fun, digital for work.

Edited November 20, 2020 by William Michael

Please advise if this is a photography class assignment.

This is just a general question I'm curious about.

This has been discussed thousands of times in recent years. Google is your friend. Be prepared to do several weeks of reading, as you evaluate peoples' opinions on the topic.

Film cameras expose film. Digital cameras create digital files.

The difference is between instant and delayed gratification.

The difference is between instant and delayed gratification.

 

Or disappointment.

Or disappointment.

No, that's Polaroid/Instax, 'Instant Disappointment'

No, that's Polaroid/Instax, 'Instant Disappointment'

Hmm... with a digital camera you can make great (fake) Polaroids, with a real Polaroid, you can't.

Hmm... with a digital camera you can make great (fake) Polaroids, with a real Polaroid, you can't.

Using my Instax SP-2 printer to produce images directly from my digital cameras, photographs that I couldn't create directly with a 'real' instant camera, such as shallow depth of field portraits, always leaves me feeling a little dirty, like I'm cheating somehow.

 

Probably why I'm building my own instant camera, with a real lens.

 

I love my instant cameras, the more I use them, the better I get, but the results can be very 'hit or miss'.

So my answer is try them both and see for yourself. Edited November 20, 2020 by William Michael

There is not any difference. Both take pictures.

There is not any difference. Both take pictures.

I disagree. Some are a bit larger than some others, and vice versa.

For the same format the digital cameras are generally larger than the film cameras. However, the digital has some cameras with extremely small format so they are not that big.

Digital cameras tend to be black, or one of many rather unpleasing colours, while film cameras also came in black, but most were a silvery metal colour.

Digital cameras are less capable of capturing black, compared to film cameras. Edited November 20, 2020 by William Michael

Two completely different mediums, like comparing film to painting.

Some of us, by the way, LOVE messing around on a computer. With a program like Photoshop every person can aspire to be a digital Ansel Adams. The race, however, is not always to the....

 

I give full credit to the excellent scientists and technicians involved in the photographic industry. The research, development, and design aspects, as well as production, are extraordinary. However, very few photographic manufacturing technicians comprehend photography as an art form, or understand the kinds of equipment the creative person requires. The standards are improving in some areas, however: in my opinion modern lenses approach the highest possible levels of perfection, and today's negative and printing materials are superior to anything I have known and used in the past. I am sure the next step will be the electronic image, and I hope I shall live to see it. I trust that the creative eye will continue to function, whatever technological innovations may develop.

Ansel Adams, 1983 Examples: The Making of 40 Photographs. Little, Brown and Company. p.59

film cameras also came in black, but most were a silvery metal colour.

The black ones fetch higher prices though. The easier the paint rubs off, the higher the price?

The black ones fetch higher prices though. The easier the paint rubs off, the higher the price?

Brassing is more obvious on black, and also a desirable attribute? Should they have made and still make all those cameras in brass, like ancient telescopes, microscopes and other things, which says 'scientific' and 'quality'? A brass DSLR or mirrorless... hmm...

Ironically, some of the earliest 35mm cameras (Like the Contax I) were black, "Silver" (often nickel) was more expensive because seen as more durable.

 

In the 60s, some professional and military photographers would purposely wear off the black so as not to seem to be newbies. Amateurs soon followed.

 

It's like making your 4-wheel drive vehicle all muddy even though your lawn is as far off-track as the vehicle has been.

And some 'misguided' (in my view) individuals take perfectly innocent film camera bodies and 'bling them up' with coloured replacements for the original black leatherette trim, or paint portions of them for some bizarre reason.

'scuse me, I'm just off to take some sandpaper to a black Zenit TTL.

 

Finish with some blue lizard trim and it'll be worth ten times as much.

And some 'misguided' (in my view) individuals take perfectly innocent film camera bodies and 'bling them up' with coloured replacements for the original black leatherette trim, or paint portions of them for some bizarre reason.

 

I'm guilty as charged, but only when the original cover has failed in some fashion. Then I figure they're fair game:

The original 'cover' had completely stripped off down to the crappy felt layer. Nah, nah

 

Normally I'm a conservationist, but ...