Clifton

I don't have so much to contribute here as those knowledgeable photographer's who've already posted. I tend to agree with Rufus though, that most of us can't tell a great anount of difference.

It seems the biggest consideration for me is that I store and display the majority of my photos electronically rather than print. So it makes sense that I capture them that way. Truly good scanners are just as hard to find as truly good digital cameras.

I always used an old SLR but eventually switched to digital - a Minolta DiMage. Found that I did miss the control of SLR but didn't miss the film overhead. Based on some really valuable input here, I recently bought a Nikon D70 and a couple of lenses. My amateur eye was impressed. Still learning my way around at this point.

It helped to look at examples of other people's work. I looked at www.trekearth.com which is a travel photography site. Lets you search by equipment, country, etc.

Once I saw some of the Nikon's results, I was sold. Nikon D70 photos:

http://www.trekearth.com/photos.php?...ra&id=1076

Keith

>(We've just had to invest in a laptop dedicated to stroing digital files only. I could have bought a lot of film for $1600 +)

You bought that laptop JUST to store digital pictures? You overpaid by a factor of 2.


>Even my small, 35mm cameras (Nikon F) take exhibit grade PHOTOGRAPHS that have sold for many hundreds of dollars.

I am an amateur and my old 1 mega pixel digital camera took pictures that I have sold for hundreds of dollars.

I'm looking forward to seeing what happens with my new 8 mega pixel.

Keith

herself

Wow, prices quoted here are pretty high.
The camara I love best is a tiny Pentax Optios S that is very light and easy to carry. Battery last for a coubple of weeks before I recharge it. It's a 4 megapixel and has a 3x zoom. Pictures are extreemly clear and can be blown up to poster size without losing quality. I bought it on the web using www.pentax.com Cost was under $300.00. It came with some great easy to use software to print creative pictures. First camara I have ever loved.

ezlivin

I totally agree that digital camera is here to stay and is the best one to use for travelling. However, I also believe that a good film camera produces photos that are far superior in quality and clarity than a good digital.

I'm not a professional phtographer, but I carry my Leica Minilux zoom, while my wife shoots away with her Canon S230 digital, whenever we travel. When showing our travel photos/images, my wife has received many compliments with her digital images, but not as much as my developed photos. I don't mind spending the extra bucks for good developing (none of that double-print, Costco stuff), but the developed photos out of my Leica are simply much better than the ones that we download into our computer screens, and as my wife and I both agree, are much more pleasant and heartwarming to look at to re-live our travels.

Gretchen

Why store images on a dedicated $1600 laptop? Why spend inordinate amounts of money on memory cards--they erase and are reuseable.
And yes, if you shoot digital it is necessary to constantly upgrade to the latest storage medium--DVD at the moment.
Not everyone "needs" to shoot digital--if you are disappointed with it, then don't use it. But it is a lot of fun, allows for light weight travel.
As for not being able to see the screen in bright sunlight, there IS the viewfinder. I never use the screen.

dgruzew

I'll add my two cents here. I have had several Film SLR's. I have taken serval amatuer classes where I get to develop my own film. I took photgraphy for 3 years in high school. SO for many years I HATED digital. I thought resoultion and features just sucked. Finally last year I bought Nikon 3100 - mainly for when we would go out at night and I did not want to drag around my SLR. I liked it for the convenice but I was no way an SLR. Then this year I bought the Nikon D70 WOW WOW WOW. This thing is AWESOME. I have never had more fun with a camera in my life . It does EVERYTHING an amatuer photgraher would do with a FILM camera and more - it actually makes you a better photographer with instant feedback on you photos. IF I were I would wait a couple a months and save your money to buy this camera, it is well well worth it and better than anything else on the market under US $2000 (even the Nikon D100). The only thing I don't like about it is the Wierd 1.5x magnifiation(cropping) factor when using stand 35mm lenses. caused by and image sensor smaller than 35 mm film

smueller

Unless the digital camera is an SLR, the viewfinder does not provide an exact representation of the image. This problem is fairly noticeable for close subject distances. I think this is called lens parallax error, or something like that. One solution that I have found is to zoom out a little further and shoot at relatively high resolution. The image can later be cropped to include only the portion of interest.

Whether one uses a non-SLR viewfinder or a display monitor on the back of the camera, nothing provides the intimacy with a subject that a through-the-lens view offers. When I look through my Nikon, for a brief moment nothing in the world exists except camera and subject. People that make asinine statements like "cameras just prevent me from seeing what's really there," etc., have no idea what photography is about. Even a serious amateur photographer studies the subject far more than a typical tourist.

Keith

smueller, that is true for non-SLR digital cameras with optical view finders, but not for digital SLR cameras and some (all?) digital cameras with electronic view finders.

Keith

jay

the cannon s410. 4 mp. if you get the 256 mb card also, you can get about 200 pictures on it.

shutterbug

I moved to digital after nearly 40 years of using SLRs when I researched and bought a SONY MAVICA CD300. I was very pleased with the results.

I no longer had to scan my photographs. And I didn't need a laptop for downloading, nor scads of memory cards. Each 30 cent CD held between 105 and 120 3 megapixel shots, depending on how many movies I shot.

After over 6,000 shots on the Mavica CD-300, I bought a new 5 megapixel SONY MAVICA CD-500 with higher resolution and more features to play with. I paid slightly over $500. There are other models with lesser resolution available, but I tend to be picky about photo quality. You can get the exact specs from the Sony web-site. I'm sure this would meet your needs. (Some of the retailers have some errors in their descriptions or they really don't know camera CD technology.

Some folks I know use CDRWs, but I prefer the CDRs because they seem to record faster and I like the instant archiving. Sometimes I stop in an Internet cafe overseas and email a few shots from the CDs to torment my coworkers who are back in the office.

I recommend CD technology cameras without reservation. The only drawback is that when traveling I need to bring 10 or more blank CDs since the 3 inch CDs are hard to find outside of a serious computer shop. A pocket-sized one-inch thick stack of 3 inch CDs will hold over one thousand high resolution photos that are ready to drop into any computer tray without needing a special card reader or hook-up.

By the way, I carry two back-up charged batteries. I have never run out of juice, even on my more insane days when I shoot hundred shots.

Good luck with whatever you choose.

Scarlett

We have a Canon Powershot G3 and I love it but when taking some photos, I really miss our old Nikon SLR..for those close ups from far far away~
The Canon is in your price range.