[at-l] Cameras - Say Cheese!

[jon@outland.net (Jonathan Hartford)]

You're overpaying for CF


512MB: $235
320MB: $137
256MB: $83

maybea bit more.

www.pricewatch.com, choose "Flash Card"

I have 2 cams.  a DC290, and a Powershot S100.  The powershot would
actually be light enough, imho, except that it uses a rechargeable battery
'pack' instead of real batteries, so I can't replace it on the trail.
The DC290 is just too plain heavy for me.  (I'm trying to go light.)
The DC290 takes superb pictures though!  And the self-timer will be 
handy for getting you into the picture.

I'll probably grab one of the new lightweight nikon 35mm cameras (5oz!).


On Tue, Jan 01, 2002 at 01:56:26AM +0000, seandolan wrote:
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> AT-L mailing list
> AT-L@mailman.backcountry.net
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/at-l

-- 
Jonathan Hartford				jon@outland.net