Amy

Well, as further clarification, I actually got the CD ROMs done on my last day in Europe, rather than lugging my rolls of film back through airport x-rays (developed film is a lot more stable than un-developed film). Also, fair warning Adobe Photoshop is an expensive software program, but perhaps not as much as developing 68 rolls? I don't know but I'm sending you cyber-smelling salts to revive you after that shopping trip! Have fun and take care...

Andrew

I think there's nothing wrong with taking the digital plunge gradually. If you are not sure which kind of camera to get, get a cheaper one for $200-ish (even a 2MP camera) and play with it, maybe even take both your 35mm and the digital on your next trip. My friend just bought an HP 2MP camera (a closeout) at Office Depot for about $99 - sounds like a great starter camera...<BR><BR>If you are willing to do the research, you can spend a little more money and get a nicer camera now. But there are some things you just can't learn through research alone - nothing like experience to learn about digital photography.<BR><BR>Andrew<BR>

Andrew

To Amy: I don't think digital cameras are necessarily more fragile than film cameras (except digital cameras have fewer moving parts; my digital D30 even has a mechanical shutter, which you won't find on the cheaper digitals). On rec.photo.digital you rarely hear about cameras dying, so they can't be that fragile. 35mm cameras break also.<BR><BR>I'm not sure why you think the &quot;digital format&quot; lacks the &quot;colors/details&quot; of 35mm. For one thing, all digital cameras are different so there is no one &quot;format&quot; - each brand produces different color responses, just as film from Kodak and Fuji produces different colors. Also, most 35mm film prints today are made on digital printers; negatives are scanned into digital 1's and 0's before printing. Why is that necessarily better than the conversion of the image into digital 1's and 0's by a camera? You really can't make a blanket statement - depends on the camera technology and the scanner technology. Digital cameras improve every year - don't sell their quality short.<BR><BR>If you do get your 35mm film scanned, make sure you get scans in high resolution (I get 6MP equivalent scans of my 35mm stuff), unless you don't want to make enlagements past 4x6. Getting CD scans of 35mm instead of prints probably won't save you any money in the long run, but it does give you some flexibility.<BR><BR>If you print at home, be aware that the longevity of the pictures you print depends on the paper and the ink you use. I wouldn't trust prints off of a home printer to last for decades regardless. It's not that much more expensive to get quality digital prints from a lab.<BR><BR>Photoshop: most people don't need the full version. Photoshop Elements is much cheaper. You can also get Paint Shop Pro, a fine program that does most of what most people here would need in Photoshop, for around $100. There are even some free graphics programs out there (GIMP for one).<BR><BR>Andrew<BR>

bill

Well, I take both digital and film, but I'm deranged. The speed at which the camera takes photos is very important if you take any type of action shot. A medium priced digital will take about a second to &quot;snap&quot; the picture, which is an eternity if there is action going on.<BR><BR>As far as software for digital editing, my experience so far gives a firm nod to Paint Shop Pro over Adobe Photo Elements. I'm not a pro at this yet, but I have ended up with both and I tend to use Paint Shop. Yes, about $100. It seems quite a bit more user friendly and can do anything a serious amateur might ask it to do.<BR><BR>Bill

Melissa

65 rolls of film? That camera must have been glued to his hand for the duration of your trip!

steve

Just bought my first digital took it to Italy last November and loved it . It has only 2mp and is fine for up to 5 by 7.So ya I want 5mp for the next trip.<BR>The camera does have 3X digital zoom and I think that feature is critical so th $99 HP is probably a waste of money. for $50 to $100 more you will get something better. I took 2- 128mg cards and that was great. I alternated from the best quality to next down and took more than a 1000 pictures with room to spare.Batteries--------- I prefered the disposable and used only $10 worth in 1000 pictures.I did not want to mess with charging in europe, adapters etc. But here is the deal on battery use. You use up the batteries when you review the pictures. If you don't have the LCD screen on all the the time and aren't always checking after every picture you won't go through batteries. The actually taking the pictures doesn't use battery power hardly at all. Take all the extra shots you want and review the shots at night as quickly as possible.I did ofcourse make sure certain shots were ok but kept to a minumum. Also downloading eats up batteries.<BR>It all seems really worth when I don't have to go through 100's of pictures that suck after I paid for developing.<BR>One more thing is I found low light like museums etc. and when flash is not allowed are better than a 35mm in the same price range.<BR>

Andrew

Melissa: I took almost 1300 digital pictures over two weeks in France and the Netherlands last September. That's over 50 rolls of 24. However, many of these were not &quot;keepers&quot; - I just didn't take the time to remove them til after I got home. After my first pass at picking the good ones I was down to 400 (closer to what I would have taken had I shot film). Even then only I printed only about 100 of the those.<BR><BR>Steve: I don't know what kind of HP camera my friend got (haven't seen it yet); it was a closeout so it may indeed have optical zoom. I'll have to check it out.<BR><BR>If you are worried about running down your camera batteries when downloading, get a card reader (about $20). This way, instead of using your camera to download, you unplug your memory card (&quot;digital film&quot from the camera and plug it into the card reader, which is plugged into the computer's USB port. Not only does this save batteries and the hassle of having to hook up your camera, but card readers are often faster at downloading than your camera is. And card readers will work in most newer computers (Windows ME, 2000, XP) without installing a driver. You could use your card reader on the road to download your photos to someone else's computer. Very handy.<BR><BR>Andrew<BR>

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.

I could also shoot movies and film clips for my web-pages.

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.

As far as the &quot;FRAGILE&quot; issue, I wrapped my CD300 in a single sheet of bubble wrap and stuck it in its standard padded case for the overseas transit. Never had a problem. I think the newer models are even more sturdy, but I don't want to test that theory just yet. But I think any camera (digital or film) is at risk when subjected to more than a three-foot drop.

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.