Nice collection, Fuscus! I've added your site to my favourites! 
In my humble (uneducated) opinion, it largely depends on what you want to do with the photos. I have a 3 megapixel digital that does a pretty good job, especially for web use and casual printing. It has a good macro capability, but only 3 x optical zoom (I NEVER use digital zoom - that can be done on the computer later!).
However, if you want really good quality photos, you can't beat a reasonable quality SLR film camera..... unless you can afford a 6 megapixel or higher digital or pro standard camera.
Digital, again in my opinion, is rapidly approaching the quality of film, although a high resolution camera is still far too expensive for me. When digital is of a higher resolution, it is actually superior to film in some ways. For example, there's no grain in the image. This is particularly noticable when scanning a photo for cropping/editing. (Yeah, all right, I should have framed the photos correctly in the first place, so I didn't need to edit, but I'm an amateur. all right?!).
Certainly digital has the advantage of ease of use and immediate checking of the results, which allows you to reshoot if necessary, and very low ongoing costs (except for hard disk space). At least with digital you can use my method of getting one or two really good shots - take as many as you can fit on the memory card! That way, you should get at least a couple that turn out ok! The hard part is actually deleting the bad ones! That's why I've got several thousand images on my hard disk!
Anyway, that's my opinion, for what it's worth!! :wink:
oh yeah, back up your good photos to CD! Ever had a hard disk crash?? Not nice! :shock: :?
In my humble (uneducated) opinion, it largely depends on what you want to do with the photos. I have a 3 megapixel digital that does a pretty good job, especially for web use and casual printing. It has a good macro capability, but only 3 x optical zoom (I NEVER use digital zoom - that can be done on the computer later!).
However, if you want really good quality photos, you can't beat a reasonable quality SLR film camera..... unless you can afford a 6 megapixel or higher digital or pro standard camera.
Digital, again in my opinion, is rapidly approaching the quality of film, although a high resolution camera is still far too expensive for me. When digital is of a higher resolution, it is actually superior to film in some ways. For example, there's no grain in the image. This is particularly noticable when scanning a photo for cropping/editing. (Yeah, all right, I should have framed the photos correctly in the first place, so I didn't need to edit, but I'm an amateur. all right?!
). Certainly digital has the advantage of ease of use and immediate checking of the results, which allows you to reshoot if necessary, and very low ongoing costs (except for hard disk space). At least with digital you can use my method of getting one or two really good shots - take as many as you can fit on the memory card! That way, you should get at least a couple that turn out ok!
The hard part is actually deleting the bad ones! That's why I've got several thousand images on my hard disk! Anyway, that's my opinion, for what it's worth!! :wink:
oh yeah, back up your good photos to CD! Ever had a hard disk crash?? Not nice! :shock: :?
