BetterPhoto Q&A
Category: New Answers

Am I On The Right Tack?

To love this question, log in above
July 04, 2002

I can't help you much with specific hardware, but will provide some observations about cost, print sizes, "optical zoom" and digital file storage considerations.

A good friend of mine worked out all the costs after buying a digital camera, printer, etc. He's not saving any money making his own photographic quality prints. It's about the same, perhaps a little more, when using high-end premium print paper. The print paper and ink for the printer are his significant costs. He badly underestimated how much ink he would use. It consumes much more than normal color printing and good inks that won't rapidly fade are more expensive. Most find that they're not saving much (if any) money unless they typically have a very low yield of keepers. What they do find, after getting past the learning curve of how to get a good color balanced print from their printer, is no more aggravation from poorly printed negatives from consumer one-hour labs. [Note: there are some decent consumer one-hour labs, but general quality level is spotty. A good one can suddenly go downhill with the rapid personnel turnover most have.]

His maximum print size is an 8x10, it is marginal, and he must have maximum resolution files to get decent ones. They work OK at normal viewing distance in a frame on a wall, but cannot withstand close scrutiny. An 11x14 (or 11x16) print is about the limit for 35mm film enlargement, and that requires the highest resolution, slowest films. To get even an acceptable print that size requires a very high end, professional grade digital using max resolution, and their cost is several times your stated budget (camera body alone; not even a lens). I recommend downgrading your expectations to most no bigger than 5x7 with an occasional 8x10.

You're smart to pay attention to "optical zoom" as using the "digital zoom" range sucks resolution out of the image quickly. The "digital zoom" feature works by cropping how much of the CCD is used to make the photograph. Even though some algorithm may expand the number of pixels to a full-size file, it's performing some form of averaging of the ones recorded from the CCD to do it. In short, these methods can add pixels and make files bigger, but they cannot add detail that was in the scene, but weren't captured and recorded from the CCD.

Digital Storage Considerations:
You mentioned shooting 50 rolls of film. If these were 24 exposure rolls, it was 1200 photographs! To get larger prints (even with downsizing your expectations some) requires using maximum resolution from a digital. There is a severe limit to how many image files you can store before having to download them onto a computer. The alternative is having pile of "memory sticks" (or whatever the media is they're stored on in the camera). These are not inexpensive, especially the largest capacity ones you would need for storing that many images. Work out the math for how many photographs the camera you're considering can hold at the resolution you need for the print size you want. I know there are some wedding photographers that have switched to very high end digital cameras, but it's not very many, and none that I know locally have done so. The reason? The image storage requirements are staggeringly enormous. The logistics of hauling a laptop computer around plus the time required for downloading them on-location are infeasible. They shoot about 300 images average, 500 max for a very large wedding and long reception, between 1/4th to 1/3rd of the 1200 you shot. If your typical "burn rate" when traveling is that high, start working out a complete "game plan" for how to store and transport that many digital photographs based on a calculation of total storage requirements . . . and consider the cost of that also.

-- John

To love this comment, log in above
July 05, 2002

I can help a little with the computer side of things based on my experience as a network technician, and will offer my experiences with digital cameras.

After using my Elan 2 for 2+ years, I tried a couple of Digital cameras. I planned on using them sort of like polariods, for exposure information, etc. I expected them to perform like regular cameras. Perhaps this was my mistake. The first that I bought was your basic point and shoot digital. It frustrated me very badly. You see, I tend to take pictures of objects that move... or breathe. I have a 7 year old daughter, and she doesn't much like to sit still for the camera. I would point the camera at her, and press the shutter. The camera would then think about taking the picture, adjust the shutter speed and such, and -then- take the picture. By this time, she'd already have moved, and the picture was ruined. The camera went back the very next day. Thinking that this was maybe a pitfall of "cheaper" cameras, a few months later, I found a used Canon Pro70. While it did seem to perform better, the delay was still significant. I missed several shots this way. That camera went back later the next week. The camera shop suggested that a Canon D30 might be more what I was looking for if I was expecting image quality and rapid shutter response of my "other" camera. This is a $4500+ cdn camera here. Body Only.

The one thing that I notice that John's excellent response does not comment on is the rate that these digital cameras will chew up batteries as well. Unless you never use the lcd, and only record images on the flashcards and download them, without viewing, or erasing etc, you will notice that you are changing batteries often enough that it might well be worth your while to carry a second suitcase for batteries alone. ( ok,..slight exaggeration ;) ) But you will want to purchase NimH Batteries aplenty. And they're not cheap. 4 AA batteries here run around $14 a package + charger, and typically ran those cameras about 20 - 30 images with larger resolutions ( as you seem to indicate that you will be wanting to do.) The camera that you describe has a Lithium battery, and may not take AA batteries as a backup. In that case,.. you'd want to purchase a second, perhaps even third spare battery, since sometimes the opportunity to recharge those batteries doesn't present itself on a daily basis while travelling.

I have both Epson Scanner and printer. I have no complaints about either. I find that for the money especially, they were an excellent buy. I would, in retrospect perhaps have purchased the C60 or C80 if I'd realised I was going to be printing pictures. I was more interested in price at the time, as my old printer had just died, and I needed to print some stuff. HP makes an excellent printer, but I find them pricey. ($60 - $100USD more for similar features to an Epson or other brands. Especially true of the scanners that I was looking at.) Seperate cartridges are definately a bonus. You will typically use one color more than the others, and would then only have to replace that cartridge. This can save a lot of money in the long run. Another thing to look into is the price of cartridges, and availability.

The Nikon software will require that you upgrade your computer. If you don't use it for retrieving the images, and another piece of software.... that might not be an immediate need. For instance,.. both of those cameras were supplied with software, I never did install either of them, but was able to retrieve the images through windows explorer, and view them in Irfanview (www.irfanview.com), the imageviewer that I use. It's fully featured as a viewer and better still,.. it's free.

If your computer has USB capability, it will be fine, although you will need to upgrade to Win98se for the ability to use it, as OSes previous to this had questionable or no USB support. If it doesn't, then there are flashcard readers out there that use a serial connection,.. they are harder to find now, but out there. They are slower, but still usable. Or you can purchase a USB reader, and a card for your computer that will add USB ports. The page I found for the camera says that the camera doesn't support this, but a regular USB reader will.

The other thing that you will want to puchase if you are going to be storing digital images, is a CD burner. This will add about $120USD (last time I was in the states) to your price. You do not want to store images only on your computer, in case the harddrive fails. There is no way to retrieve the data if this happens, and all of your pictures will be lost. I scan to my computer, to post to my webpage, and regularly backup to more than one CD, in case one gets scratched.

I hope this helps.
Thanks
stormi

To love this comment, log in above
July 13, 2002

I'm sorry,.. I also forgot to mention that you will want a printer that is capable of matching,.. or at least come close to matching, the resolution of the images that you print. For instance,.. If I print an image that is 1200x700dpi on my printer, that is capable of 300x600, I will see loss.

So if you want to use this printer as your "photolab", in many cases, a not too expensive printer will start to show it's limitations early in the game.

Thanks
stormi

To love this comment, log in above
July 13, 2002

About battery consumption:

Saw a local newspaper photographer at a recent outdoor, daylight event I was also shooting. The newspaper converted to very high end digital a couple years ago; 35mm SLR's with digital backs. It's an excellent digital application with (relatively) low resolution requirements that cuts out the developing and "pre-press" work required to get film into newsprint.

He was wearing a "slab" -- jargon for the mondo battery used with high power flash heads in the GN 150-200 range (ISO 100; feet). The size of a hard cover novel (but much heavier), they're worn on a belt around the waist or hung from a strap over the shoulder. It powered his camera, not a flash. Don't know how long he can run on the slab but it must be significant compared to internal batteries. Same reason they're used for high power flash heads.

-- John

To love this comment, log in above
July 14, 2002

	Just a duck. Taken with an Olympus C-720 UZ camera. No flash. Mike Mincey

As for printing, I have the opportunity to print on professional printers, but I have an Epson Stylus 777 which prints EXCELLENT photos. Even upon close inspection, you will have an extremely tough time telling the distance (unless you're the type that looks at every photo with a magnifying glass). Even our senior technicians could not tell that I used my $99 printer instead of their $800 professional printer. Yes, there are better printers out there and yes, the cost can sometimes equal, if not exceed, traditional developing, but I love the do it yourself feel and the option of choosing 4x6, 5x7, or 8x10. I will not go back to film.

To love this comment, log in above
July 15, 2002