Re[2]: [at-l] Megapixel Madness--

[Bob C." <ellen@clinic.net (Bob C.)]

"...  which  digital camera did we decide was best for general all around use on
the trail, at home, etc.?" asks Sly.

I'm  not sure "we" decided anything. "We" have had a number of suggestions and a
couple  of  superb  technical discussions. I've garnered that 2 megapixels works
okay  for the kind of quality most people accept as okay when they process their
prints  at  the  drug store or photo kiosh. Better quality for those who need or
want  it, requires 3 or 4 mega pixels and most professionals will want to double
that number and increase their cash investment 10 fold.

It's  my  plan  to  stick with 35 mm slide film at least for a while longer. The
problems  of  battery  charging,  finding a reliable home person to download and
ship  back storage devices, hassles of meeting post office deadlines -- and most
importantly  of  creating  good  projection photos strikes me as time-consuming,
prone  to  errors,  and  very  expensive,  when you consider an adequate digital
projector costs between $2,500 and $4,500.

Except  for  an  occasional "record" photo with little if any permanent value, I
mostly  use  slide  film.  For stuff of little permanent value I still use print
film  or  my  wife's $400 digital Kodak. With film a simple scanner produces the
occasional 8 X 10 I choose to make. In a pinch I can generate a pretty good 11 X
17 for a special display.

Slides  can  be  made  from  digital photos, thus avoiding the cost of a digital
projector,  but they tend to be expensive, and of much lower quality than slides
originally generated from slide film.

My  gear  is  of reasonable quality, but the scanner and printer are a couple of
years  old  now  and if I get my lungs back into working order one of these days
I'll upgrade to devices that will improve my output a great deal.

I have a computer "slide show" of the best 240 of my 3,000 trail slides, which I
turn  on  occasionally  to  glance at while doing chores around the house. Every
glance at the computer monitor brings back great memories.

For  wallet and album size pictures I can grind them out plenty fast enough with
the scanner and printer, though I tend to find the need for these grows less and
less as I become adept at digital storage.

Sorry. This is a lengthy way to suggest that I didn't detect a consensus in what
I thought was a long, but very good photo discussion.

Weary