[at-l] Re: Ultralight Digital Cameras

[lparker@cacaphony.net (L. Parker)]

> Don't get me wrong, because I LOVE digital cameras.  They're
> even more fun than Polaroids used to be.
> I take mine on overnight and weekend hikes.
> But are they a good choice for an extended hike? Aren't the
> present battery and memory limits just a little too constraining?
> I doubt that there are as many "weather resistant" versions
> out there as are for film cameras, either.

See previous posts regarding battery and memory limits. Also, given the
number of shots that fit one 256 MB CF card, an equivalent number of rolls
of film would weigh as much as the camera...I don't know about others, but
the Canon S110 and S300 have a waterproof case available as an optional
accessory. Of course it weighs as much as the camera. I have always carried
ANY camera in a Ziploc Freezer bag anyway, even if it was in a "waterproof"
case.
>
> If the final output is intended to be a high resolution digital
> image, then wouldn't scanning a 35mm negative or slide be a better
> solution?  If the goal is a large print, then wouldn't film
> be better to start with?

Actually, no. Unless you happen to have your very own darkroom and are
skilled in its use, it is far easier to blow up, crop, adjust exposure,
contrast enhance, etc. digitally than on film. Print quality output on
current photo printers is all but indistinguishable from a standard print
from film.

Many professional photographers are switching to digital cameras.
Admittedly, the professionals are using the $5,000 or more Canons built on
an SLR frame such as the one Uncle Milt has, but as I said before, there is
very little difference in quality or resolution, just in the lens
accessories that you can mount.

I was in the business of distributing this sort of hardware to stores for
awhile, except then the cameras cost closer to $20,000....

Leaving for the Ruck, last post for the weekend, by y'all.

Lee I Joe