[at-l] Cost Comparison - Digital VS Slides

[wb4pan@mindspring.com (Charles Davidson)]

Hey,

=09I have really enjoyed all the information and comentary on this mega thr=
ead. Something else to consider in addition to cost and quality is convenie=
nce. For a thru hiker 35mm might be more convient. Just drop the roll in th=
e mail no need for memory exchange or computors in bump boxes.
=09However for short hikes of a week or two and home use I really like my d=
igital. Actually I would probably use a digital on a thru hike also. I am n=
ot a very good photographer but I have found that quantity helps. When I us=
ed a 35mm I would take maybe one roll on a weekend. Now I can take 400 at n=
o additional cost. I can step out in the back yard and take 50 shots then c=
ome inside and look at them. That convience is worth a lot to me.
=09My camera is only a 1.3 megapixel. I really would like to upgrade it. St=
ill I am well satisfied with my 8 x 10 prints. I post them on my cork board=
 at work and frame them at home. For someone like me who is a snapshot shoo=
ter, a digital brings a lot of pleasure.
=09Data projectors are half the cost they were two years ago. Still $1500. =
Is pricy. Another option, since we all have pc's already (unless you are us=
eing some email station device) you can add a video card to your pc that le=
ts you view pictures on your TV for $99. My second video card uses an S-vid=
eo output. So you need a TV or reciever with an S-video input. Many laptops=
 have this S-video output built in and offer a great way to show pictures t=
o a small group.
=09Just more things to consider from a non-pro viewpoint. Keep that great i=
nfo coming.

chase

Jim Bullard wrote:
>
> The discussion re: film vs digital has revolved around image quality whic=
h
> is probably not a big consideration for the average  thru-hiker who only
> wants web site illustration, slides for doing presentations to groups
> post-hike and the odd print no larger than 8=D710.  I decided to check ou=
t
> the actual numbers in a comparison between slide film and digital for suc=
h
> a hiker. My calculation assumes that the hypothetical hiker is starting
> from scratch and assume $350 for the camera in either case.  That amount =
is
> enough to get reasonably good quality in a 35mm P&S/SLR or digital P&S
> camera.  I have also assumed 2400 photos (Weary said he took 3000).  All
> Prices (except flat bed scanner and laptop) are from B&H Photo in NYC.
>
> Film Option: Camera $350, 3 sets of batteries - $24, Carousel Projector
> 4200 - $180, 67 rolls of 36 exposure Kodak Elite slide film/ISO 200 - $36=
8,
> 67 prepaid processing mailers - $301, scanner with transparency
> capabilities UMAX 4450 (direct from UMAX) - $129 : Total $1352
>
> Digital Option:  Camera $350, 3 - 128meg memory cards (one for use, one t=
o
> send in the mail and one to cover gaps in maildrops) - $210, 24 sets of
> batteries (assuming 100 photos/set) - $192, laptop for running digital
> slide shows (Gateway or DELL) - $999, SANYO 800=D7600 pixel LCD projector=
 (
> the cheapest in the B&H catalog) - $1399 : Total $3150
>
> The difference: +$1798 for digital
>
> Of course, if the hypothetical hiker already owned some of the above the
> figures would change accordingly as would buying used equipment, getting =
a
> volume discount on the film/processing mailers but I believe the above
> demonstrates that digital is not necessarily cheaper than film even with
> the difference in image quality left out of the equation.  Even if one to=
ok
> double the number of pictures I calculated, the digital option would stil=
l
> cost $1129 more.
>
> sAunTerer (who likes digital but isn't kidding himself that it is cheaper=
)
>
> _______________________________________________
> >From the AT-L mailing list         est. 1995
> Need help?  http://www.at-l.org
> Archives: http://www.backcountry.net/arch/at/
> Change your options or unsubscribe:
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/at-l
>
> Stay on topic!