Choice of travel camera

"jsmith" wrote in
news:1102808647.f0570179d023575f8298894274dd78e9@s onicnews:

We are in the age of digital cameras like it or not. But don't be
sucked into those unwieldy complex cameras that have limited storage
too quickly. The old reliable 35 mm film cameras are still the cameras
of choice. They are simple to use and offer a wide choice of films.
The main advantage these cameras offer in this era of computers and
CDs is the fact that when the film is taken into Eckerds for
developing you can have the images processed onto a CD without having
prints made. Total cost is $4.00. If later on you wish to either print
some of the better images using your computer or by returning the
negatives to the photo finisher you will always have two convenient
archives of the images, one CD and the other negatives. I fully expect
all the jackasses will respond to this posting with their usual
idiotic comments, but I know what I am talking about! So have a ball.



I have been using a 3MP Olympus for quite some time now, and love the
ability to post and/or e-mail the photos instantly. I tried to persuade my
wife to convert to digital from her 35mm Oly, but she resisted. Recently,
we were in BJ's and she started to look at the Olympus C60, and after
research and discussion, she bought one. She used it during a recent
cruise on the MS Zaandam, and now she is totally hooked on the C60. Some
of her comments to me regarding the camera we "I thought that it would
be more dificult to use", and "It's so easy to see the picture right away,
and to take another if I don't like it". This is from a person who does
not use a computer, and who has no interest in learning. lol Our photos
from the Zaandam trip are posted he
http://groups.msn.com/N2WJ/zaandamno...nw?albumlist=2
The photos from the C60 have "Bonnie" in the filename, the rest were taken
by me with an older C3000 Zoom. Flamers note, we are not pro
photographers..... lol


--
Veendam Feb 03 West Carib
Zuiderdam Sept 03 West Carib
veendam Feb 04 West Carib
Zaandam Nov 04 West Carib
Westerdam 05 Eastern Carib
Veendam 05 South Carib


N2WJ 10-80M, CW, QRP/CW, QRPp/CW, and SSB for New DX lol

"SONNY" wrote in message
...

I guess I must be really gullible for getting sucked into one of those
unwieldy complex digital cameras that have limited storage too quickly. I
could never figure out how to set it on auto and just snap away. Storage
is really a problem. I have two 512mg disk that gives me 640 5 meg
pictures. That could never be enough. My old reliable $300 35mm camera was
much better. I loved having to change film just at the most convenient
time and waiting until after I had the film delevoped to see if it was a
good shot. I usually kept about 15 pictures out of 36 exposures....

I have used an older digital camera on several trips with good results.
However, it has only a digital zoom (pretty much a joke) and it is very slow
finishing the picture once the button is pressed. And, I have never liked
taking pictures looking at a screen (really hate viewfinders). So, for our
recent Tran-Atlantic cruise I reverted to 35 mm using a 20-year old Minolta
(manual focus, auto exposure) with a 35-135 zoom lens. I shot ten rolls of
film and got some great shots. However, I had forgotten some of the
disadvantages of using that camera. For one it is heavy- hanging from one's
neck on a thin strap for hours gets tiresome. And, as mentioned above, I
ran out of film at very inopportune times such as near the top of the cable
car ride in Madeira and part way down on the basket ride. Believe me, it is
not good to try to quickly load the camera near the top of the cable car
ride (can you say "dumped the camera bag contents on the floor just as the
doors were opening at the top?). In defense of this 35 mm characteristic, I
found that I get "low battery" warnings at pretty much the same inopportune
times with my digital and changing four batteries quickly can also cause
"dropsy".
My processing bill (for one set of 4"x6" prints and high resolution photo
CDs) was about $115. I also found out that my old eyes don't relate well to
manual focusing anymore. I was surprised how many shots I took that were
not as well-focused as I would like. And, image stabilization... (not).
So, next time I'm going to upgrade to a good optical zoom, image-stabilized,
auto-focused digital, preferably a SLR. I'll use software to crop, rotate,
"enhance", whatever, then upload my "corrected" pictures to my processor
(Seattle Photoworks) to make prints of the pictures I really want at $.19 a
print (or less on specials).
Paul Johnson

"SONNY" wrote in message
...

I guess I must be really gullible for getting sucked into one of those
unwieldy complex digital cameras that have limited storage too quickly. I
could never figure out how to set it on auto and just snap away. Storage
is really a problem. I have two 512mg disk that gives me 640 5 meg
pictures. That could never be enough. My old reliable $300 35mm camera was
much better. I loved having to change film just at the most convenient
time and waiting until after I had the film delevoped to see if it was a
good shot. I usually kept about 15 pictures out of 36 exposures....

I have used an older digital camera on several trips with good results.
However, it has only a digital zoom (pretty much a joke) and it is very slow
finishing the picture once the button is pressed. And, I have never liked
taking pictures looking at a screen (really hate viewfinders). So, for our
recent Tran-Atlantic cruise I reverted to 35 mm using a 20-year old Minolta
(manual focus, auto exposure) with a 35-135 zoom lens. I shot ten rolls of
film and got some great shots. However, I had forgotten some of the
disadvantages of using that camera. For one it is heavy- hanging from one's
neck on a thin strap for hours gets tiresome. And, as mentioned above, I
ran out of film at very inopportune times such as near the top of the cable
car ride in Madeira and part way down on the basket ride. Believe me, it is
not good to try to quickly load the camera near the top of the cable car
ride (can you say "dumped the camera bag contents on the floor just as the
doors were opening at the top?). In defense of this 35 mm characteristic, I
found that I get "low battery" warnings at pretty much the same inopportune
times with my digital and changing four batteries quickly can also cause
"dropsy".
My processing bill (for one set of 4"x6" prints and high resolution photo
CDs) was about $115. I also found out that my old eyes don't relate well to
manual focusing anymore. I was surprised how many shots I took that were
not as well-focused as I would like. And, image stabilization... (not).
So, next time I'm going to upgrade to a good optical zoom, image-stabilized,
auto-focused digital, preferably a SLR. I'll use software to crop, rotate,
"enhance", whatever, then upload my "corrected" pictures to my processor
(Seattle Photoworks) to make prints of the pictures I really want at $.19 a
print (or less on specials).
Paul Johnson

"SONNY" wrote in :

But, what do I know? I'm just a jackass with
another idiotic comment.
Care to look at what my 5meg digital does on auto setting?
www.sonnyv.smugmug.com


As regular readers here know, I'm another of those jackasses. (Loved your photos, Sonny.)

I am very heavy into aviation photography (museums, bases, airshows, etc.) I used to trade with
several people. I would take two or three photos of the same subject, often adjusting the camera
settings in order to "get it right." Now I take one photo and adjust it in Adobe Photoshop if I have to. If
I don't like it, I erase it. I can print it on high quality paper with a high quality printer and defy anyone to
tell the difference between my digital print and one from a film camera without looking at the back of
the print to see the paper name (or using a microscope.)

I just sent my English friend about 60 prints of the aircraft at the new Dulles Airport Annex to the
National Air and Space Museum. The low-light capabilities of the digitals are terrific today, and no high
grain film is needed to get that capability. I think he'll be impressed with the photos. He was with the
photos from my old 1.2-megapixel camera, and they weren't nearly as "nice."

I can get "only" 120 high resolution photos on my 512-meg compact flash using my 8-megapixel
Minolta Dimage. I'm receiving my fourth compact flash for Christmas (I helped her pick it out.) That
means I will be able to take 480 photos on our trip to Egypt next September or our Panama cruise in a
couple months. The four compact flash cards fit neatly into my pocket... Oh, yeah, one's in the camera.

In the days of 36-exposure rolls of film, I would have had to carry 13 rolls of film with me. I
haven't seen a 36-exposure roll in ages. Today they seem to be 20, 24 or 25 exposures. At 25, that
means I would have to stuff 19 rolls into my pocket. I look funny enough already without those bulges
in my pockets.

One last point: it is getting harder and harder to find a decent film camera.

I believe film still has its place, however, and will never go away totally.

(For those who missed it, the capabilities of the digital camera I am using now can be viewed at
http://www.royfc.com/owen.html with remarks about the camera and settings, or the photos from our last
cruise without camera details at http://www.royfc.com/cruise/mir_cruise_review.html.)

--Roy Cochrun

"SONNY" wrote in :

But, what do I know? I'm just a jackass with
another idiotic comment.
Care to look at what my 5meg digital does on auto setting?
www.sonnyv.smugmug.com


As regular readers here know, I'm another of those jackasses. (Loved your photos, Sonny.)

I am very heavy into aviation photography (museums, bases, airshows, etc.) I used to trade with
several people. I would take two or three photos of the same subject, often adjusting the camera
settings in order to "get it right." Now I take one photo and adjust it in Adobe Photoshop if I have to. If
I don't like it, I erase it. I can print it on high quality paper with a high quality printer and defy anyone to
tell the difference between my digital print and one from a film camera without looking at the back of
the print to see the paper name (or using a microscope.)

I just sent my English friend about 60 prints of the aircraft at the new Dulles Airport Annex to the
National Air and Space Museum. The low-light capabilities of the digitals are terrific today, and no high
grain film is needed to get that capability. I think he'll be impressed with the photos. He was with the
photos from my old 1.2-megapixel camera, and they weren't nearly as "nice."

I can get "only" 120 high resolution photos on my 512-meg compact flash using my 8-megapixel
Minolta Dimage. I'm receiving my fourth compact flash for Christmas (I helped her pick it out.) That
means I will be able to take 480 photos on our trip to Egypt next September or our Panama cruise in a
couple months. The four compact flash cards fit neatly into my pocket... Oh, yeah, one's in the camera.

In the days of 36-exposure rolls of film, I would have had to carry 13 rolls of film with me. I
haven't seen a 36-exposure roll in ages. Today they seem to be 20, 24 or 25 exposures. At 25, that
means I would have to stuff 19 rolls into my pocket. I look funny enough already without those bulges
in my pockets.

One last point: it is getting harder and harder to find a decent film camera.

I believe film still has its place, however, and will never go away totally.

(For those who missed it, the capabilities of the digital camera I am using now can be viewed at
http://www.royfc.com/owen.html with remarks about the camera and settings, or the photos from our last
cruise without camera details at http://www.royfc.com/cruise/mir_cruise_review.html.)

--Roy Cochrun

"SONNY" wrote in :

But, what do I know? I'm just a jackass with
another idiotic comment.
Care to look at what my 5meg digital does on auto setting?
www.sonnyv.smugmug.com


As regular readers here know, I'm another of those jackasses. (Loved your photos, Sonny.)

I am very heavy into aviation photography (museums, bases, airshows, etc.) I used to trade with
several people. I would take two or three photos of the same subject, often adjusting the camera
settings in order to "get it right." Now I take one photo and adjust it in Adobe Photoshop if I have to. If
I don't like it, I erase it. I can print it on high quality paper with a high quality printer and defy anyone to
tell the difference between my digital print and one from a film camera without looking at the back of
the print to see the paper name (or using a microscope.)

I just sent my English friend about 60 prints of the aircraft at the new Dulles Airport Annex to the
National Air and Space Museum. The low-light capabilities of the digitals are terrific today, and no high
grain film is needed to get that capability. I think he'll be impressed with the photos. He was with the
photos from my old 1.2-megapixel camera, and they weren't nearly as "nice."

I can get "only" 120 high resolution photos on my 512-meg compact flash using my 8-megapixel
Minolta Dimage. I'm receiving my fourth compact flash for Christmas (I helped her pick it out.) That
means I will be able to take 480 photos on our trip to Egypt next September or our Panama cruise in a
couple months. The four compact flash cards fit neatly into my pocket... Oh, yeah, one's in the camera.

In the days of 36-exposure rolls of film, I would have had to carry 13 rolls of film with me. I
haven't seen a 36-exposure roll in ages. Today they seem to be 20, 24 or 25 exposures. At 25, that
means I would have to stuff 19 rolls into my pocket. I look funny enough already without those bulges
in my pockets.

One last point: it is getting harder and harder to find a decent film camera.

I believe film still has its place, however, and will never go away totally.

(For those who missed it, the capabilities of the digital camera I am using now can be viewed at
http://www.royfc.com/owen.html with remarks about the camera and settings, or the photos from our last
cruise without camera details at http://www.royfc.com/cruise/mir_cruise_review.html.)

--Roy Cochrun

Well, now with all said and done, as offensive as my "jackass" statement
was, I note that no one who fits that description responded to the post. All
comments were well stated and very interesting and informative. So you see,
I did have method in my madness. Thanks to all who have responded.
jsmith


"jsmith" wrote in message
news:1102808647.f0570179d023575f8298894274dd78e9@s onicnews...
We are in the age of digital cameras like it or not. But don't be sucked
into those unwieldy complex cameras that have limited storage too quickly.
The old reliable 35 mm film cameras are still the cameras of choice. They
are simple to use and offer a wide choice of films. The main advantage
these
cameras offer in this era of computers and CDs is the fact that when the
film is taken into Eckerds for developing you can have the images
processed
onto a CD without having prints made. Total cost is $4.00. If later on you
wish to either print some of the better images using your computer or by
returning the negatives to the photo finisher you will always have two
convenient archives of the images, one CD and the other negatives. I fully
expect all the jackasses will respond to this posting with their usual
idiotic comments, but I know what I am talking about! So have a ball.

I use both a 35 mm and a digitial camera. You also need to look at the
area that you are travelling to. When we went to Churchill 2 years ago
to see polar bears, it was really cold. Several people had digital
cameras and there was only one that did not fail in the cold. I think
that was mainly because he downloaded his pictures into his laptop as
soon as he took them. The electronics in all of the other cameras
failed and I ended up sending copies of my 35 mm pictures to a lot of
the people. My Nikon F-100 did well although I had to change batteries
more frequently. Even my old Minolta held up and
was used by someone else on the trip. Many wildlife photographers
such as Norbert Rossing still use regular 35 mm cameras in the cold.

In February when we head to Antarctica, I will be taking both types of
cameras.
It may not be as cold as Churchill but since it is probalby a once in a
lifetime trip, I want the pictures to turn out.

I use both a 35 mm and a digitial camera. You also need to look at the
area that you are travelling to. When we went to Churchill 2 years ago
to see polar bears, it was really cold. Several people had digital
cameras and there was only one that did not fail in the cold. I think
that was mainly because he downloaded his pictures into his laptop as
soon as he took them. The electronics in all of the other cameras
failed and I ended up sending copies of my 35 mm pictures to a lot of
the people. My Nikon F-100 did well although I had to change batteries
more frequently. Even my old Minolta held up and
was used by someone else on the trip. Many wildlife photographers
such as Norbert Rossing still use regular 35 mm cameras in the cold.

In February when we head to Antarctica, I will be taking both types of
cameras.
It may not be as cold as Churchill but since it is probalby a once in a
lifetime trip, I want the pictures to turn out.

Good point about the extreme cold. I'm sure you know this already, but for
the sake of someone that might not, when not using your camera, try to keep
it next to your body and under your coat. Take the batteries out between
sessions and keep them warm as well. It'll help.
Monica
wrote in message
oups.com...
I use both a 35 mm and a digitial camera. You also need to look at the
area that you are travelling to. When we went to Churchill 2 years ago
to see polar bears, it was really cold. Several people had digital
cameras and there was only one that did not fail in the cold. I think
that was mainly because he downloaded his pictures into his laptop as