On a recent vacation, I got the chance to find out. I brought my older Olympus Stylus Zoom and the new Olympus Stylus 300 digital camera with me. I wanted to rate how they felt on the fly, then compare shots when I got home and see which camera captured the same scenes better. So here it is — a hands-on comparison of two largely automatic cameras (one film, one digital) during a 10-day trip to Europe.
In some ways, it wasn't a fair comparison. I was comparing a nearly ten-year-old film camera with a brand-new digital camera. The older, film-based model has a focal length of 35-70mm. The new Stylus 300 has an approximate focal length of 35-105mm. As a result, the digital camera has a more powerful zoom. (I also suspect the "approximate focal length" spec is very conservative, since the digital Stylus consistently captured a slightly wider shot than the film Stylus could manage.)
But it's this kind of comparison that a first-time digital camera buyer has to face, too. So here it is.
Weatherproof and pocket-friendly
Both Stylus cams withstood the weather and the hazards of travel superbly. The Stylus line is famous for being sturdy and weatherproof, and these cameras held their own. Germany was unusually cold for April — in fact, it snowed almost every day while we were there — and we hit Iceland for a few days as well. However, the cameras were unfazed by the damp conditions and low temperatures (-7° Celsius in Berlin one day, which translates to 19.4° Fahrenheit). Plus, they were hurriedly thrust into pockets, backpacks and purses, and subsequently banged against subway floors, airplane seats, and train luggage racks, without any apparent damage — even the older one with the plastic body. Nice job, Olympus.
Size-wise, they also did well. They were both small enough to fit in a coat pocket. The new Stylus 300 would fit in most pants or shirt pockets as well. The size issue is really of key importance for most people, who don't want to walk around with a pound or two of photographic equipment dangling from their neck in a sizeable protective case.
Charging up: Different approaches to battery power
The older film Stylus takes a non-rechargeable lithium ion battery that you can find anywhere you buy film. It's somewhat expensive, but has a reasonable lifetime. No problem there.
The digital Stylus 300, on the other hand, had me worried. It comes with a rechargeable lithium ion battery and a charger. Digital cameras, in part because of their LCDs, are notorious for having low battery life, and if it ran down in Europe, I wasn't sure I'd be able to recharge it. I called Olympus customer service to find out if the included adapter was capable of handling the higher voltage of the European electrical system — if so, I would have just added a plug adapter to my luggage. The representative thought it wasn't.
I left for my trip with the included battery fully charged, and my fingers crossed. It turned out the customer service rep underpromised — the included charger is rated for 100-240 volts, perfectly suitable for European systems once you've added a plug adapter — but it didn't matter. The supplied Stylus 300 battery did just fine with the nearly 100 photos I took.
Film versus memory
Storage of pictures was more complicated. I'd brought along four rolls of film for the film Stylus, and knew I could get more film easily, but I only had one 16MB xD-Picture Card™ for the digital Stylus 300. We were staying with friends, so I brought the digital camera's USB cable, thinking I would just dump photos onto a friend's PC and e-mail them home to myself. But no one had a PC that was ready for plug-and-play USB camera connections. I found a Saturn Electronics store that would dump my digital photos onto a CD for about $20 — but for that, I could just buy another xD-Picture Card.
In the end, we bought two additional 16MB xD-Picture Cards, and filled them up as well. (Amazingly, I had no difficulties finding the xD-Picture Card at photo retailers, despite warnings to the contrary.) Now I understand why everyone advocates buying extra memory: it's a must-have.
Comparing usability
Because neither camera was loaded with pro-sumer features (manual focus, manual exposure settings, etc.), they were similar to use. The film Stylus had optical zoom and a few flash settings only. The digital Stylus 300 had flash modes as well, but also offered control of sensitivity and white balance, plus a few preset exposure modes (Portrait and Landscape, for example). The only specialty mode I used on the Stylus 300 was Night Scene, which slows the "film speed" equivalent way down, and really requires either a tripod, or steadier hands than I'll ever have. At 9.2 ounces, the older Olympus was slightly heavier than the 6-ounce digital Stylus. However, this difference didn't matter as far as shooting went.
One distinct difference lay in the digital Stylus' ability to show me a photograph after it had been snapped. I would take a picture, find I'd captured a slightly different shot than I'd expected, delete it, and snap a new one. This was immensely useful when I was trying to take good pictures of scenery or monuments, and it was fun, as I traveled, to show people pictures of what we'd done and seen a few days before, by displaying the pics on the LCD. I had not realized how helpful this feature — so common on digital cams — would prove.
But the big question for me was, how would my photos look? How would a digital photo of Berlin's Brandenburg Gate compare to a film print of the same subject? Could a 3-megapixel camera produce pictures with enough detail and color accuracy to satisfy folks used to traditional photography? Here's my answer.
All about the photos
I snapped a lot of pictures with each camera, some close to identical, many far from it. After an initial comparison of the film prints against the digital images (as viewed on my computer screen), I came to the following conclusions.
The film camera tended to handle contrast more capably, perhaps because it had no artificial processing jumping in to make the sky bluer, or backlighting less of an issue. Flesh tones, too, looked a little more natural with the film Stylus.
However, its autofocus was less intelligent, and ran into difficulties occasionally. For example, when shooting through the windows of a bus, the film camera tried to focus on the scratched and dirty plastic window, whereas the digital Stylus 300 was able to lock onto the desired subject outside the bus.
The digital Stylus 300 performed nicely when faced with moving objects — its ability to automatically adjust sensitivity, or film speed equivalence, was handy. (I loaded the film camera with Kodak Gold 200 film every time, so it had only one film speed option.) Additionally, the digital Stylus 300 portrayed color better than the film camera under certain conditions — notably, when the colorful scene being photographed was at some distance, rather than closer up. Why? I'm not sure.
However, the Stylus 300 did tend to darken up photos a little, as well as glossing over light and dark contrasts that existed in the scene itself. This sometimes detracted from the drama of a shot. I suspect the camera's usually helpful, prettifying processing was at work once more. The film camera does not have any digital processing, so what the camera sees is essentially what you get (although you're certainly at the mercy of the film quality and the lab's handling of development).
Generally, because all cameras deal differently with different situations, my first assessment felt rather like the comparison between any two film cameras or any two digital cameras. After all, you never get identical color, contrast, etc., from two different cameras, even if both consistently produce attractive pictures.
One question remained, however: how did the prints compare? Plenty of people want actual prints of their photos, whether they were snapped on a digital camera or a film camera. So I went on to my final test.
Storage of pictures was more complicated. I'd brought along four rolls of film for the film Stylus, and knew I could get more film easily, but I only had one 16MB xD-Picture Card™ for the digital Stylus 300. We were staying with friends, so I brought the digital camera's USB cable, thinking I would just dump photos onto a friend's PC and e-mail them home to myself. But no one had a PC that was ready for plug-and-play USB camera connections. I found a Saturn Electronics store that would dump my digital photos onto a CD for about $20 — but for that, I could just buy another xD-Picture Card.
In the end, we bought two additional 16MB xD-Picture Cards, and filled them up as well. (Amazingly, I had no difficulties finding the xD-Picture Card at photo retailers, despite warnings to the contrary.) Now I understand why everyone advocates buying extra memory: it's a must-have.
Comparing usability
Because neither camera was loaded with pro-sumer features (manual focus, manual exposure settings, etc.), they were similar to use. The film Stylus had optical zoom and a few flash settings only. The digital Stylus 300 had flash modes as well, but also offered control of sensitivity and white balance, plus a few preset exposure modes (Portrait and Landscape, for example). The only specialty mode I used on the Stylus 300 was Night Scene, which slows the "film speed" equivalent way down, and really requires either a tripod, or steadier hands than I'll ever have. At 9.2 ounces, the older Olympus was slightly heavier than the 6-ounce digital Stylus. However, this difference didn't matter as far as shooting went.
One distinct difference lay in the digital Stylus' ability to show me a photograph after it had been snapped. I would take a picture, find I'd captured a slightly different shot than I'd expected, delete it, and snap a new one. This was immensely useful when I was trying to take good pictures of scenery or monuments, and it was fun, as I traveled, to show people pictures of what we'd done and seen a few days before, by displaying the pics on the LCD. I had not realized how helpful this feature — so common on digital cams — would prove.
 |  |
| With the film Olympus, I snapped this uneven photo (left) of a famous Reykjavik church. With the digital Stylus, on the other hand, I was able to discard poorly centered shots, and try again. Additionally, the film itself developed red streaks that affected the picture — a non-issue for a digital camera. | |
But the big question for me was, how would my photos look? How would a digital photo of Berlin's Brandenburg Gate compare to a film print of the same subject? Could a 3-megapixel camera produce pictures with enough detail and color accuracy to satisfy folks used to traditional photography? Here's my answer.
All about the photos
I snapped a lot of pictures with each camera, some close to identical, many far from it. After an initial comparison of the film prints against the digital images (as viewed on my computer screen), I came to the following conclusions.
The film camera tended to handle contrast more capably, perhaps because it had no artificial processing jumping in to make the sky bluer, or backlighting less of an issue. Flesh tones, too, looked a little more natural with the film Stylus.
However, its autofocus was less intelligent, and ran into difficulties occasionally. For example, when shooting through the windows of a bus, the film camera tried to focus on the scratched and dirty plastic window, whereas the digital Stylus 300 was able to lock onto the desired subject outside the bus.
The digital Stylus 300 performed nicely when faced with moving objects — its ability to automatically adjust sensitivity, or film speed equivalence, was handy. (I loaded the film camera with Kodak Gold 200 film every time, so it had only one film speed option.) Additionally, the digital Stylus 300 portrayed color better than the film camera under certain conditions — notably, when the colorful scene being photographed was at some distance, rather than closer up. Why? I'm not sure.
However, the Stylus 300 did tend to darken up photos a little, as well as glossing over light and dark contrasts that existed in the scene itself. This sometimes detracted from the drama of a shot. I suspect the camera's usually helpful, prettifying processing was at work once more. The film camera does not have any digital processing, so what the camera sees is essentially what you get (although you're certainly at the mercy of the film quality and the lab's handling of development).
Generally, because all cameras deal differently with different situations, my first assessment felt rather like the comparison between any two film cameras or any two digital cameras. After all, you never get identical color, contrast, etc., from two different cameras, even if both consistently produce attractive pictures.
One question remained, however: how did the prints compare? Plenty of people want actual prints of their photos, whether they were snapped on a digital camera or a film camera. So I went on to my final test.
Direct comparison: Digital and film prints
First, I chose five digital images that corresponded closely with five film prints. I went to the same camera place that developed the film photos, and got the digital images printed in the same sizes, on the same kind of paper. This process turned out to be breathtakingly easy, and each 4" x 6" digital print cost only $.45 each — not dirt cheap, but not unbearable. (There are a number of photo printers available, too, many with remarkably good print quality, but I wanted the closest comparison possible.) Then I began comparing the digital prints to the film version.
The observations described above held pretty true. The film photos had a graininess which did not show up in the digital photos. In two of the digital photos, the images were noticeably darker. All five digital images had a very slight emphasis on blue tones. And perhaps most important, the digital photos showed no trace of pixellation. In fact, the digital photos looked much better than they had on my computer's screen. Overall, I felt both cameras had produced great photos.
I wanted to make sure it wasn't just me, though. Armed with my five pairs of photos, I asked several fairly photo-knowledgeable people if they could tell which photo in each pair was digital, and which was film. Despite confident avowals ("This'll be easy!"), no one got 100% right. Two people (one a professional photographer) got 80%. Three people got three out of the five shots sorted correctly, one person got 2 out of 5, and one person got 1 out of 5. I've scanned two of the image pairs — click the photos to see them in a larger size.
So should you or shouldn't you?
If this article were a product review of the Stylus 300, I'd be giving it plenty of stars, or the Golden Megapixel award, or something. It's a gadget-lover's dream come true — not only is it tiny and shiny, it also feels very solid. And it does what so many gadgets don't do — it lives up to the hype. You get a respectably high resolution, highly capable automatic picture-taking, just enough flexibility to require a glance or two at the manual, and the user-friendliness of digital photography. It doesn't offer much manual adjustment, but for $399, you can't expect that.
But this isn't a product review. Instead, it's an assessment of how switching to a mainly point-and-shoot digital camera might feel, after years of using largely automatic film cameras. And the answer is, it feels pretty good.
Granted, I'm not ready to say a final goodbye to film. There's a quality to prints developed from film that is unmistakable. In fact, despite the very touristy look of wandering around taking pictures with two different cameras at once, I'm inclined to bring film and digital cams along on my next trip, too.
But using the digital Stylus 300 was so easy. Viewing the images on the LCD meant that nearly every shot I kept was a winner. Image files viewed onscreen and digital prints both looked darn good — honestly, much better than I expected. I was disappointed at times by the darkening of the photos, or the unsophisticated handling of light — digital processing has its drawbacks as well as its advantages. But the disappointments were no greater than those experienced when you develop a roll of film, only to find that the pictures you were sure would be great were washed out or full of red-eyed family members.
So — interested in trying out this new technology? If you have a USB-capable computer, and like the flexibility that digital cameras have to offer, you're probably well-suited to digital photography. If you plan to print your photos, buy at least a three-megapixel cam (if you plan to make prints bigger than 5" x 7", I'd go for a 4- or 5-meg camera). Remember to buy extra memory; it's indispensable. And don't forget to take advantage of features like manual control, a better lens, etc. Your first couple of attempts may involve purely automatic shooting, but even subjects as simple as close-ups of a flower or shots of the kids' soccer games benefit from the advanced settings you can find on many digital cameras.
First, I chose five digital images that corresponded closely with five film prints. I went to the same camera place that developed the film photos, and got the digital images printed in the same sizes, on the same kind of paper. This process turned out to be breathtakingly easy, and each 4" x 6" digital print cost only $.45 each — not dirt cheap, but not unbearable. (There are a number of photo printers available, too, many with remarkably good print quality, but I wanted the closest comparison possible.) Then I began comparing the digital prints to the film version.
The observations described above held pretty true. The film photos had a graininess which did not show up in the digital photos. In two of the digital photos, the images were noticeably darker. All five digital images had a very slight emphasis on blue tones. And perhaps most important, the digital photos showed no trace of pixellation. In fact, the digital photos looked much better than they had on my computer's screen. Overall, I felt both cameras had produced great photos.
I wanted to make sure it wasn't just me, though. Armed with my five pairs of photos, I asked several fairly photo-knowledgeable people if they could tell which photo in each pair was digital, and which was film. Despite confident avowals ("This'll be easy!"), no one got 100% right. Two people (one a professional photographer) got 80%. Three people got three out of the five shots sorted correctly, one person got 2 out of 5, and one person got 1 out of 5. I've scanned two of the image pairs — click the photos to see them in a larger size.
 |  |
 |  |
| In looking at these pairs of scanned photos (film on the left, digital on the right), it's easy to see the digital camera's tendency toward darker photos with more blue tones, compared to the warmer tones of the film camera photos. | |
So should you or shouldn't you?
If this article were a product review of the Stylus 300, I'd be giving it plenty of stars, or the Golden Megapixel award, or something. It's a gadget-lover's dream come true — not only is it tiny and shiny, it also feels very solid. And it does what so many gadgets don't do — it lives up to the hype. You get a respectably high resolution, highly capable automatic picture-taking, just enough flexibility to require a glance or two at the manual, and the user-friendliness of digital photography. It doesn't offer much manual adjustment, but for $399, you can't expect that.
But this isn't a product review. Instead, it's an assessment of how switching to a mainly point-and-shoot digital camera might feel, after years of using largely automatic film cameras. And the answer is, it feels pretty good.
Granted, I'm not ready to say a final goodbye to film. There's a quality to prints developed from film that is unmistakable. In fact, despite the very touristy look of wandering around taking pictures with two different cameras at once, I'm inclined to bring film and digital cams along on my next trip, too.
But using the digital Stylus 300 was so easy. Viewing the images on the LCD meant that nearly every shot I kept was a winner. Image files viewed onscreen and digital prints both looked darn good — honestly, much better than I expected. I was disappointed at times by the darkening of the photos, or the unsophisticated handling of light — digital processing has its drawbacks as well as its advantages. But the disappointments were no greater than those experienced when you develop a roll of film, only to find that the pictures you were sure would be great were washed out or full of red-eyed family members.
So — interested in trying out this new technology? If you have a USB-capable computer, and like the flexibility that digital cameras have to offer, you're probably well-suited to digital photography. If you plan to print your photos, buy at least a three-megapixel cam (if you plan to make prints bigger than 5" x 7", I'd go for a 4- or 5-meg camera). Remember to buy extra memory; it's indispensable. And don't forget to take advantage of features like manual control, a better lens, etc. Your first couple of attempts may involve purely automatic shooting, but even subjects as simple as close-ups of a flower or shots of the kids' soccer games benefit from the advanced settings you can find on many digital cameras.