In the old days, if your camera (35mm of course) had a battery die on you in the middle of an important shoot, you still had options. I mean after all; the only thing you needed the battery for was the light meter, it’s not like your whole camera will shut down if you have no battery. If you are using all digital that might have stung just a little bit.
The point was if your battery died, you still had a way to get a good picture. If you were using 100 speed film you could set your shutter speed to whatever the flash sync speed was (usually 1/60th or 1/125th of a second), set your f-stop to f-16, and bracket every shot. Besides the obvious dependency on batteries, there are other differences between film and digital cameras.
If you have ever shopped for a digital camera you have no doubt heard the phrase: “35mm equivalent”. This means that the optics is not exactly the same in a digital camera. Since the 35mm SLR camera has been the standard for so long, that’s what newer cameras are compared to. The difference between the two is a ratio of 1:1.4. Simply put, a 35-200 zoom on a digital camera would be like having a 49-280 zoom lens on a traditional 35mm camera.
The main reason the optics are different is because the sensor (the device that actually reads the light) is also a different size. Film cameras use film (sensitive to light) that is placed directly behind the lens. When the correct exposure is calculated, that image is literately burned into the film. Digital cameras use a sensor; that also sits behind the lens. This sensor is made up of millions of individual points that each represents 1 pixel. Once the sensor has gathered the information for each pixel it transfers that data to a digital media card (which can be used repeatedly.)
The rise and rise of digital is based primarily on one factor – convenience. Contrary to popular belief, digital images are not higher quality than those taken on film. The misconception seems to be that because it’s digital, it must be better. Not so. The information held in a negative or transparency far outweighs that of a digital image. The tonal variation is also greater on film, beautifully evident when using medium and large format. The thing is, all that information and beautiful tone and texture, often isn’t needed; on a screen or in newsprint for instance. In these cases, the convenience of digital outweighs the quality of film and that’s fair enough.
Compared to film, digital has less workable range than film, meaning that instead of a nice smooth transition from dark to light tones and across the color palate, the highlights burn out and the colors get ‘blocked’. This is especially evident with reds that often appear overly saturated while other colors aren’t, resulting in an unnatural looking image. Because of less tonality, the images, when reproduced, flatten out. There is a distinct lack of depth to the images that just don’t grab a reader’s attention any more.