[at-l] Cost Comparison - Digital VS Slides

[icw39@ncfreedom.net (Clark)]

One other thought to consider on all this mess - what to do when you
change computers at some point in the future?  If you have scanned in a
ton of pics, or uploaded a bunch from a digital camera memory card, then
you better have a good file transfer mechanism capability [i.e., either
a network set-up, CD R-W, zip drive, etc.]  Otherwise, you may find
yourself in the same boat many folks have found themselves in - namely,
having an older computer chocked full of pic files with no zip drive or
CD-R/W capability, and no network card, then going out and buying a new
computer, then getting home, and freaking out over how to transfer all
those huge pic files from the old machine to the new one . . .

This problem is starting to get less acute given the growing prevalence
of zip drives, CD-R/Ws, and better file transfer capabilities of newer
version operating systems, but it remains a real problem for a lot of
older computer users . . .

In closing, I would somewhat smugly observe that my "low-tech" digital
idea of simply having your film processor also create a digital CD for
you with all your pics on it eliminates this problem entirely - you just
pop the CD into the new computer and dump all the pics onto the new hard
drive! :)

thru-thinker

Charles Davidson wrote:

> Hey,
>
> =09I have really enjoyed all the information and comentary on this mega t=
hread. Something else to consider in addition to cost and quality is conven=
ience. For a thru hiker 35mm might be more convient. Just drop the roll in =
the 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=
 digital. Actually I would probably use a digital on a thru hike also. I am=
 not a very good photographer but I have found that quantity helps. When I =
used a 35mm I would take maybe one roll on a weekend. Now I can take 400 at=
 no additional cost. I can step out in the back yard and take 50 shots then=
 come 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. =
Still I am well satisfied with my 8 x 10 prints. I post them on my cork boa=
rd at work and frame them at home. For someone like me who is a snapshot sh=
ooter, 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 =
useing some email station device) you can add a video card to your pc that =
lets you view pictures on your TV for $99. My second video card uses an S-v=
ideo output. So you need a TV or reciever with an S-video input. Many lapto=
ps have this S-video output built in and offer a great way to show pictures=
 to a small group.
> =09Just more things to consider from a non-pro viewpoint. Keep that great=
 info 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!
>>
> _______________________________________________
>>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!
>
>
>