[at-l] Cameras - Say Cheese!

[seanbdolan@earthlink.net (seandolan)]

Hi all,

This is something I've been thinking of as well and here's my thoughts.

I have a digital camera (Kodak DC265) that has about 1.6 megapixel
resolution. It's good enough for photorealistic prints up to 8X10
inches. It weighs 18oz.

I'm going to buy a 256 meg memory card (est. cost $150) to go along with
my 32 meg and 8 meg cards. That gives me a total memory allowance of 296
megs. Average picture size at highest resolution is about 1 meg
(sometimes more, sometimes less depending on what you're shooting). So,
let's say that gives me somewhere around 300 pictures. Since I can
delete on the fly any pics I don't want, I figure that translates into
approximately 1200 shots on regular film (assuming you take 4 shots for
every one that's a keeper).

I haven't priced film and developing fees in a while, but I have to
believe that the $150 for the extra memory card is way less than the
total costs you'd have to budget for film (esp. since most of that cost
is actually wasted on shots you'll never really use). Figure 33 rolls of
film to get the 1200 shots. At say $15 for film and developing you're
looking at $495 (15x33). Again, it's been years since I used film, so
$15 may be off.

As for batteries, I have to agree that it's something of a problem.
BUT... the biggest drain on battery life is using the LCD screen. If you
don't use it, then the batteries tend to last a LOT longer. Also, if I
bring the AC adapter (2 oz) along, I can do my deleting of unwanted pics
while sitting in a restaurant on my days in town - and not use the
battery life. I figure I'll need to replace the 4 AA batteries 5-6 times
for a 5 month trip. Not so bad. Some cameras also have in-camera
recharging, so plugging the camera in every once in a while would be
simple during town. Personally, my camera does not have this feature,
and I am not going to lug a recharger around with me.

Downside? I guess if you wanted pics you could blow up to poster size,
you're going to use a better resolution digital camera, and that'll
prolly increase picture file size by 50% (maybe higher). That'll require
perhaps another 256K card, but the total cost of $320 still seems to be
a better deal than film.

I don't include the cost of paper to print out later, since it's not
that expensive, and I find that I tend to print out fewer pics - only
those I want to frame. To just share with friends I burn onto CD and
mail out, and if they want prints, they can either request them
individually from me, or print them themselves.

If you want to put to slides, I don't really know what to do. I suspect,
however, that most publishers would accept high-quality JPG versions of
a photo (such as those you buy online at tonysnow.com or photodisc.com).

Finally, I just like have the control over my photos. I don't know how
to develop my own film, but I sure know how to use PhotoShop. So,
essentially, I get to "digitally develop" my film on my desktop.
Otherwise, I am at the mercy of the person developing my film and
HIS/HER choice of cropping and exposure. Yes, I can correct somewhat
after scanning the pic, but it's not as good.

Perhaps if you don't already have a digital camera and printer, the
costs are prohibitive. But for me, who has both a 35mm and a digital
(with printer) already, this seems like the better choice.

Just the two cents of a webhead.

Sean



--

 - Posted via http://forums.backcountry.net