Choice of travel camera

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

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

Yea, batteries and film do better under the coat. Looks pretty funny
but works well.

Yea, batteries and film do better under the coat. Looks pretty funny
but works well.

Yea, batteries and film do better under the coat. Looks pretty funny
but works well.

On 12/11/2004 6:51 PM jsmith contemplated offing a mime and made writings:

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.




If you prefer a 35 mm camera that is your choice. There really is no
need to put down others who make choices different than yours.

As a professional, when I travel my choice is digital. Here's why:

1) You don't have to worry about film getting fogged at airport security
checks.
2) My field 35 mm camera consists of 1 SLR body, standard and special
wide angel, telephoto and special effects lenses, strobe, plus film.
Total weight. 14 lbs.

My digital camera has all the optics plus special effects and weighs in
under 10 oz.

When you are doing lots of work in tropical locations with high humidity
that 14 lb camera case can get real heavy real fast.

3) I don't have to find an Eckerds or any other film processing
middleman. I can do it all with my desktop or my laptop, including
burning disks playable in a DVD player featuring slide show, with sound.

4) In trading images over the internet, there is no loss in image
quality as I don't have to scan my images in to my computer. Likewise I
don't have to depend on some photo finisher's idea of visual acuity,
color saturation and contrast. I have creative control of it all.

5) With a film based camera once you load the film you're stuck with the
ISO rating of the film. True you can "push" the film. If you do you
have to "push" the whole roll in terms of processing. With a digital
camera, I can make some shots at ISO 100 outdoors, go indoors and shoot
at ISO 400 and then shoot by moonlight at ISO 2400 all on the same
media. I can also set the ISO setting on Auto and let the camera select
the best speed.

For static settings in a studio I'll go with a 35 mm SLR film camera or
maybe even a larger format Hassey.

I can't say this clearly enough. There is no one best camera for
travel. The best camera is the one that's best for the kind of images
you want and how you'd like those images delivered. To each his/her own.

--
________
To email me, Edit "xt" from my email address.
Brian M. Kochera
"Some mistakes are too much fun to only make once!"
View My Web Page: http://home.earthlink.net/~brian1951

On 12/11/2004 6:51 PM jsmith contemplated offing a mime and made writings:

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.




If you prefer a 35 mm camera that is your choice. There really is no
need to put down others who make choices different than yours.

As a professional, when I travel my choice is digital. Here's why:

1) You don't have to worry about film getting fogged at airport security
checks.
2) My field 35 mm camera consists of 1 SLR body, standard and special
wide angel, telephoto and special effects lenses, strobe, plus film.
Total weight. 14 lbs.

My digital camera has all the optics plus special effects and weighs in
under 10 oz.

When you are doing lots of work in tropical locations with high humidity
that 14 lb camera case can get real heavy real fast.

3) I don't have to find an Eckerds or any other film processing
middleman. I can do it all with my desktop or my laptop, including
burning disks playable in a DVD player featuring slide show, with sound.

4) In trading images over the internet, there is no loss in image
quality as I don't have to scan my images in to my computer. Likewise I
don't have to depend on some photo finisher's idea of visual acuity,
color saturation and contrast. I have creative control of it all.

5) With a film based camera once you load the film you're stuck with the
ISO rating of the film. True you can "push" the film. If you do you
have to "push" the whole roll in terms of processing. With a digital
camera, I can make some shots at ISO 100 outdoors, go indoors and shoot
at ISO 400 and then shoot by moonlight at ISO 2400 all on the same
media. I can also set the ISO setting on Auto and let the camera select
the best speed.

For static settings in a studio I'll go with a 35 mm SLR film camera or
maybe even a larger format Hassey.

I can't say this clearly enough. There is no one best camera for
travel. The best camera is the one that's best for the kind of images
you want and how you'd like those images delivered. To each his/her own.

--
________
To email me, Edit "xt" from my email address.
Brian M. Kochera
"Some mistakes are too much fun to only make once!"
View My Web Page: http://home.earthlink.net/~brian1951

The biggest reason for going Digital is that once you own the
equipment.............FREE...................

If you have a SLR chemical film camera, every time you push that
freaking button.........cha ching $$$$$$..........cha ching $$$$$$$

When I find an awesome scene, I take 15-20 pictures of it on my
digital. No way would I keep loading film rolls into a chemical
camera. That is like feeding money into a slot machine, it is for
suckers.

Keep, edit, delete, e-mail all FREE. Digital is small, compact, very
very light and with a couple of 1 GB cards, you are ready for
literally thousands and thousands of pictures.

The biggest reason for going Digital is that once you own the
equipment.............FREE...................

If you have a SLR chemical film camera, every time you push that
freaking button.........cha ching $$$$$$..........cha ching $$$$$$$

When I find an awesome scene, I take 15-20 pictures of it on my
digital. No way would I keep loading film rolls into a chemical
camera. That is like feeding money into a slot machine, it is for
suckers.

Keep, edit, delete, e-mail all FREE. Digital is small, compact, very
very light and with a couple of 1 GB cards, you are ready for
literally thousands and thousands of pictures.

I have both 35m cameras and a digital camera, but what I use on cruises is a
single-use under water camera. They are great for cruises. You can take
them to the beach without hurting them, take under water pictures when
snorkling, and get decent outdoor pictures on the ship. I took one of my
expensive Nikons on a cruise one time and got some good photos, but it is
really nice to document the cruise, but not worry about expensive cameras, .