I have a regular camera, it is not fancy or anything, it probably costs me $120 three years ago.<BR>I have been contemplating about buying a digital camera for our european trip. I keep seeing great pictures for other fodorites, and I wonder if any of those pictures were taking with regular cameras.

I just returned from a 21 day trip to China where I managed to take 2600 photos on my digital camera. Now, the cost of the Camera and digital media was about $400. But that is the only expense. If you figure 2600 photos fills 104 rolls of film at $10 a roll (development and film cost) your looking at over a $1000!<BR><BR>The great thing about a digital camera is the flexibility. Some people like to print out photos - if so buy something with a high megapixel rate. Presonally, I create VHS slideshows to show on the TV with my pictures. I use the lowest 640X480 resolution so I bought a low megapixel camera (1.1 meg). These pictures also show up great on the web. I have thousands posted at my website appleberryroad.com.<BR><BR>Another option is to stick with your 35mm. Many places, especially Walmart (not endorsing them but I like their options), will scan your photos and put them on the Web for $1 extra - you can then download them yourself - recommended only if you have a fast internet connection (ie. cable) or will put them on CD for around $3-5.<BR>

thank JPM for the detailed info

<BR><BR>I shoot with nothing but a 35mm camera. Actually, I take 3 cameras. And yes, it gets heavy. But I still think the quality of a 35mm print is better than digital. (That's fast changing, i know.) Digital is more convenient. But it's also easier to "cheat" with digital. I'm a purist. What can I say?

I think you can take digital photos that are as good as film, but not with an inexpensive digital camera. If you are willing to spend MINIMUM several thousand dollars on a digital camera, that accommodates interchangeable lenses, then you can shoot some fabulous stuff. <BR><BR>The real question, maryann, is what the photos are for. To show people where you've been and serve as a reminder to yourself? To publish as professional work? To email back to friends while you are traveling? Digital cameras are very convenient in many ways. My faves: You never run out of film, you never have to change film in the middle of shooting, and you can change your "film speed" by pushing a button rather than changing a roll of film. Oh, yeah, you can look at what you've shot immediately.<BR><BR>But if you are used to a good SLR with several lens choices you will certainly be frustrated by an inexpensive digital camera. If you are looking to spend a couple hundred dollars, I would stick with film. You'll get better quality for your money.

Marilyn<BR>true you never run out of file but you do run out of memory right? How many extra memory cards do you take along for your camera and how much do they cost and how much room do they take up?

We've been usingour 3-4 year old point-and-shoot 35mm Samsung camera on every vacation and my husband took some stunning Italy photos. I have them on a shared album at www.imagestation.com. I just scan in the ones I want to send to friends etc. We did, however kust bought a new Sony digital camcorder that also takes stills on a seperate memory stick. It comes w/ an 8Mb stick and we also bought a 64mb stick. The 64mb hold about100-150 images depending on the resolution. I uses the digital video and the still image option and my husband uses the the 35mm.

Memory has come 'way down in price--about $0.50/MP now. Look for sales at CompUSA, Walmart, etc.<BR>As for taking 2600 pictures on a 21 day trip I wonder if he saw anything with his eye or just his camera.<BR>It is also a bit false to say your camera and memory is the only expcense. You need a CD RW to store/safeguard your pictures, and a printer. I never thought I would give up my cameras--a purist like the other poster. But I have absolutely loved my digital (second one--3.3MP)<BR>You can also share your trip with others on a CD rather than flipping through lots of prints. And storing on CD is a LOT less space than loose pictures/albums--but you can do that TOO.

I get paid to take “great” pictures; I’ve been a Commercial photographer for going on two decades. We’ve been using digital since 1991…for manipulation and storage, but to create images for art purposes EVERYTHING our company does is on analog film. (I wouldn’t even CONSIDER shooting something important like a family portrait or wedding on digital. Files are too easily corrupted or lost.)<BR>Of course it depends on your intentions with your photos and for most everyday applications digital is great. We shoot film because we can scan prints or negatives into a digital format if we need to. But you will find that to match image quality with a very good 35 mm camera such as a Leica or a Nikon (with accompanying optics) or a even a fare quality medium format 2 ¼ x 2 ¼, 6x4.5 cm, or 6x7 cm negative your digital options start somewhere in the $6,000-7,000 price range.<BR>Besides, for business applications, it more cost effective for a photographer to be out creating images and making money, than being chained to a computer/printer for half the day. Professionally speaking digital has created a new darkroom mentality as in the old days when a Commercial photographer had to split his time between the jobsite and the lab.<BR>The real pro’s, be it for landscape, portrait, or media photography, shoot film.<BR>

We have a Canon EOS D30 with an IBM 1-gig microdrive which holds from 140 to 500 photos, depending on resolution. We carry a couple of compact flash memory cards (292 megs) which each hold an additional 40 to 150 photos, again depending on resolution.<BR><BR>The compact flash memory cards are the size of a saltine cracker, so space is not an issue. They are relatively expensive but not compared to film and processing, especially when you consider that you can reuse them after you download the photos. And the price keeps coming down. <BR><BR>In the interest of full disclosure, I must tell you that we do not shoot only digital. We have several traditional film cameras with us as well (husband is professional photographer). <BR><BR>And we think that within the next few years, downloading digital photos will become a standard, inexpensive option at internet cafes. It's a natural expansion of their services as digital becomes more widespread.

<BR><BR>Oh, I just thought of another difference between 35mm and digital..<BR>In Hawaii one trip, I was hiking up a stream. I slipped and dropped my Nikon F3. It hit a rock - LOUDLY. The motor drive casing has a nice dent in it but you know what, the camera still worked. And continues to work. It's about 25 years old. I can even take pictures with it when the batteries are dead.<BR>Try any of that with a digital camera!!

I gotta agree with you, JT. There is nothing like those solid old SLR's.

Gretchen, I had to laugh at your reply. We had a guy on our trip we called Video Phil who literally saw the trip through his viewfinder. He recorded 3 to 4 hours PER DAY! He would walk around with the camera pointed at himself talking about where he was and what he was seeing.<BR><BR>As for myself, I averaged about 125 pictures a day - some more, some a lot less. There were times when I would snap 20 or 30 pictures one after the other (in a space of a few minutes) - the great thing was I didn't have to worry about the expense of developing the pictures.<BR><BR>And yes, you are correct, you would need a computer with a CD-R to store you pictures - I didn't add this cost because my computer was paid for long before I ever purchased a digital camera. But it is true that you do need a computer if you are using digital - which would add at least $600 to the cost (Yes, you can get a very decent complete computer system for $600 - if people don't believe this they simply haven't shopped for computers). <BR><BR>As for a printer, actually I don't print any of my photos. I know this is different than most people. <BR><BR>

I have a pair of old Nikons, an F and an F1. The F is from the Vietnam era and it looks like it’s been used to drive nails. I’ve banged it against coach seats, sat on it, and once in Mexico I used it as a weapon (some scum-bucket had just stolen a lady’s handbag. As he ran passed I swung the camera by its strap, like a bolo, and whacked him in the back of the head . It dropped him immediately to his knees and as the cops hauled him away he was rubbing the knot on the back of his head, glaring at me, and speaking in tongues!) The incident did break a u.v. filter and left a pronounced dent in the metal just beneath the film advance lever, but it is made of brass and steel and I’m sure it will be going long after I’m dust and the vast majority of current digital formats are nothing but quaint memories.

About a year ago I replaced by 25 year old Canon AE-1 (great camera) having a fixed 50mm f1.8 lense with a Canon elan 7e having a 28-105mm lense.<BR><BR>I have not as yet joined the digital revolution and probably won't for at least a while.<BR><BR>I go on vacation with my wife and I don't think it would be fair to take 200 photos a day. I don't wait more than a few seconds for better light and don't circle and circle an object until I get that great shot.<BR><BR>I take 20-35 per day and then worry after which are the ones I really like and enlarge them (8x10) and hang.<BR><BR>When I switched cameras I went to Fuji 400 film instead of Kodak 200. I found 200 was not sensitive enough for the wide/zoom lense late in the day. <BR><BR>I tried Kodak 400 and 800 but hated them. Then tried Fuji 400 and 800 and loved them. I will try Fuji 800 a bit more but I enlarged the 400s to 8x10 and they are absolutely great and sharp.<BR><BR>My last 2 trips (New York and Rome/Sorrento) were shot with the newer Cannon. The Rome/Sorrento using Fuji 400 film.<BR><BR>To see the results visit<BR>www.travelwalks.com (non-commercial)<BR><BR><BR><BR>

Yes, the SLR will never die . . .I have an old Nikkormat and a Nikkomat (not for export, bought in Japan in 1973) and an FT2 with all sorts of lenses and filters.<BR><BR>I recently bought a Canon G2 4 megapixel digital camera (appx 35mm to 105mm) for about $800, several 128Mbyte flash memory cards at $70 apiece, and a wide angle lens. I understand the unwillingness of SLR buffs to let go of their equipment but for an amateur travel photographer like me, it's nuts not to use the digital camera.<BR><BR>I recently returned from a two-week tour through Norway, Sweden, and Denmark where I took almost 5000 pictures. I have a Sony laptop (about $1500) which I dowloaded the pictures to at the end of each day. It was great to be able to see the pictures I'd taken and dump the poorly composed shots rather than paying for them.<BR><BR>As for comparing digital and analog: First, don't drop either one. Second, you can't just point and shoot my Canon G2 and get a good picture -- it is autofocus and takes about one second to focus and adjust the shutter speed and aperature before taking a picture. This isn't a disadvantage, it just takes some getting used to.<BR><BR>As for storage, I simply write them to a CD after I index them which is much easier than dealing with the 5x7 sack of photos with negatives. Also, when I want to send them to friends and relatives, it's easy. Just attach as email. Having said that, you can't send a batch of 4megapixel pictures, you need to drop down the resolution and compress them. Again, there's a learning curve and some new stuff to adjust to. But for me, I'll never take my SLRs on vacation with me again.<BR><BR>As for retention, my CDs will be around far longer than negatives -- that is unless you are a true professional and know how to store negatives. But for the amateur travel photographer, a digital camera is the best thing since suitcases for travel.<BR><BR>In the new world of the high speed internet, cheap PCs, cheap memory, cheap CD writers and high quality digital cameras for under $1000, my guess is that the sales of analog SLRs is way, way down.<BR><BR>Steve

Marilyn,<BR>She's not used to a high-dollar SLR, she said she's got a $120 camera. And I think you are wrong to say that a $200 analog camera is as good or better than a digital camera.<BR><BR>Craptoe,<BR><BR>You don't need to spend $7000 to get a good digital camera. 5 years ago, maybe. Not now. Oh, and "files are easily lost or corrupted"??? And negatives aren't? And by the way, she's not a "real pro" she's going on a vacation to Europe.<BR><BR>As far as durability goes, you get what you pay for with analog or digital. HP makes some light weight junk digital cameras and Canon and Nikon make some pretty durable stuff. To say one is better than the other (that is, mechanical is better than electronic) is simply dumb.<BR><BR>Go to a camera store -- not a Wal-mart or a Sams -- and ask a professional what he would recommend, and make him explain why.<BR><BR>Have fun.

<BR><BR>I don't know anything about them, but I've taken photos of other people using their digital cameras. To me, the way you look through the "viewfinder" is very bizarre, making it difficult to compose a photo. Are most digital cameras like this?

To the original poster (Maryann): you can take fantastic photos with a cheap 35mm camera. Get a digital camera if you want one, but learn how to use it well before your trip. <BR><BR>You also need to learn the "digital flow" of getting photos off your camera and getting them printed, etc. That's half the learning experience when you get a digital camera. As a half-step, for this trip you might try using your 35mm and instead of getting prints as usual, getting CD's burned of scans of your photos when you get back (probably $10/roll per CD), select the ones you want later on your computer, then get only the shots you want printed. Truly, this won't save you any money, but it will get you acquinted with the digital photography process without actually buying a digital camera.<BR><BR>I have the same camera that Marilyn has, a Canon D30. It *is* an SLR (there's no digital preview, and you look through a glass viewfinder, just like a 35mm SLR; the D30 has a real mechanical shutter and the same "click" any other 35mm SLR has). It takes the same lenses that I use on my 35mm Canon camera. I did pay several thousand for it originally, but this camera (body only) can be had for $1000 or less used, as it has been replaced by the Canon D60.<BR><BR>My D30 takes great pictures (I took about 1300 over two weeks in Europe recently), but I disagree strongly that you must spend several thousand dollars to get a digital that takes great pictures. Canon has other cameras such as the G2 that take excellent shots with the built-in lens. No, you won't get the same quality images I get with my D30 (especially with a long exposure), but for daytime shots, you can get great results. I've seem some terrific shots from a G2.<BR><BR>Digital photography has made huge leaps in the last few years. Many professionals are moving to it - the benefits are just too great over film. I dabble as a pro now; I'm finding out that some clients want you to use digital and burn them a CD almost immediately. Medium Format photography will be around for a while, but 35mm is going to die soon.<BR><BR>Personally, I find my D30 too heavy for taking walking-around snapshots - I've been tempted to get a more compact camera like a G2 because it's so much smaller and lighter. I'd keep my D30 for dusk shots or anything requiring a long exposure with a tripod.<BR><BR>JPM: you might figure out that you saved a ton of money taking 2600 photos in China, but would you *really* have taken anywhere near that if you were shooting film??? Of my 1300 Europe pics, I'd say maybe 100 of them are worth printing (and I'm very picky about it). I knew I could take many extra shots for "free" though so I could pick and choose later, but if I were shooting film, I might have shot 300 or 400 frames. One bad thing about digital is that it lets you be lazy and shoot and reshoot as you wish.<BR><BR>Andrew<BR>

I second Snoopy's recommendation...go to a real camera store. The sales person can help you make the best choice for you. There are so many variables involved that you could easily get lost in the options. Know how you want to use the camera, what type of photos you intend to take, how much hassle you are willing to accept with the camera, how much you are going to use it, the weight, ease of use, and also how much you want to spend. You could get a nice film camera or digital camera for under $500 that does pretty well or you could easily drop $10,000 on something that does excellent. However, the final result is in how well you choose the subject.