[at-l] Photography ---

[jbullar1 at twcny.rr.com (Jim Bullard)]

At 12:59 PM 2/11/2005 -0600, Thomas Fort wrote:
>Maybe most people take film images?  However, there are some good DSLR
>cameras hitting the market these days.  And, the prices are slowly
>coming down.  Any thoughts on the difference in taking photos on film
>vs. Digital?  I could come up with some pros/cons of each for a long
>hike.  Would you be willing to carry the extra 4#'s of equipment on a
>long hike?  I'd just about say it would be worth it.

Thinking out loud (as loud as digital thoughts get): It depends on how you 
are going to use the photos. I want as high resolution as possible. The 8 
MP cameras (those with built in zooms) are probably light enough. Memory is 
lighter than film but batteries could present a problem if you are going to 
be more than a few days between town stops where you can recharge. They 
make portable solar chargers now but if you get a week of rain, then 
what??? A battery for each day (I routinely run batteries down in a day)is 
probably as heavy as film and at $30-40 each can add up really quick not to 
mention the cost of the memory. Of course you could carry FlashTrax or the 
equivalent  and only two inexpensive flashcards. OTOH I love the real time 
histogram on my 5060Z and the Canon 10D. I have a fantasy about finding a 
light meter for my film cameras that is programmable with the sensitivity 
curve of the film you are using and displays a histogram for the scene you 
are shooting. At this point, if I were to do a thru I'd still shoot film, 
high saturation color negative film to be specific, and scan the negatives 
afterward. Reason: primarily resolution and batteries.