Originally posted by curiouslyadrift
However, I'm still most interested on any input regarding digital point-and-shoot vs. film rangefinder. I know this is an odd place to bring it up, but I'm looking for multiple opinions on how they compare.
• Digital compacts don't have rangefinders, unless they use an EVF or you compose your shots on the LCD they won't tell you where the focus is.
• Digital compacts do not have interchangeable lenses. You are stuck with whatever is on the camera. Usually the lenses are quite slow and not very wide at the wide end of the zoom range.
• Digital compacts use small sensors which makes it hard to work with DOF under normal circumstances.
• The small sensors in compacts make them very noisy, especially at higher sensitivities. This makes them almost impossible to use for available light photography.
• Film has higher dynamic range than digital compacts.
• The shutter lag in digital compacts is usually quite long and makes it very easy to miss a moment.
• Digital compacts let you review the exposure after the shot is captured, but in reality this isn't of much use since most of the time the moment will be lost if you make a mistake. In reality you have to be able to make fast and accurate exposures with both film and digital.
• It doesn't cost anything to shoot with a digital compact. With my film cameras I pay ~$0.14 (film+development) for each b&w exposure.
• Digital compacts have zooms and autofocus. Rangefinders are manual focus only and there are no real zooms(?).
• Digital compacts are much better for macro photography because of the LCD and the longer DOF.
• Digital compacts are better for longer focal lengths.
• Digital compacts need batteries.
edit: I've probably forgotten lots of things, it's 4am here.