Jon Hope wrote:
>
> At 01:23 24/06/01, Isaac wrote:
>
> >To be fair, you weren't using it with ideal accessories. Nobody doing
> >real shooting uses an 8 meg card. I know you weren't going to shell out
> >the bucks for a high capacity card just to test, but they do pay for
> >themselves quickly... The use of good rechargeable batteries is also
> >mandatory as you've found out!:-) With those two requirements out of the
> >way, you'll find yourself snapping pictures like mad, and they won't
> >cost you any more to shoot! It really can be cheap to shoot with
> >digital...
>
> Ok, I'll be fair. I live in Australia, so I'll use Australian prices. One
> set of rechargeable AA batteries is $30.00. As they usually last less than
> a set of Alkalines I'd probably need three sets, if the rate of use of
> alkalines is any indication.
Then you're using the wrong rechargeable... The newer NIMH batteries
should last significantly longer than alkalizes in digital cameras. Of
course, that is a small amount of money as compared to whole package.
If I want a bigger flash memory card, a 64MB
> version is $160.00, or 128MB is $340.00. I'd probably want the 128MB card
> (112 JPEGs or 16 TIFFs). Add that to my initial $1200 outlay on the camera
> and I'm up for $1650 (ish). That would give me a 2.1MP camera and
> associated stuff. If I wanted a 3.34MP camera, I'd be up for the best part
> of $2,400.
>
> It is hard to decide whether the EI-200 is any better than, say, an MJU2,
> which costs about $250. The extra $1400 (ish) would pay for an awful lot of
> film and developing.
You should lose quit a bit of flexibility as compared to the MJU2, you
can't shoot in different types of light (tungsten, fluorescent,
daylight, etc), you'd lose whatever macro feature the Pentax has, you'd
lose the wysiwyg (for focusing at least, more or less for the actual
framing) screen, "instant" feedback as far as how the shot came out, and
of course you don't have the extra time expenditure at the lab. It's not
really fair to either camera to compare them... If those features are
ones that you would like to have (and if they're not maybe you don't
really want a digital!:-), I think that they would be worth, say another
500-600 bucks. That still leaves $800, but depending on how you shoot,
you may or may not make it worth your while. There are many people that
do!
>
> One thing I didn't mention was that I didn't take my Z-1p with me yesterday
> to shoot alongside the digital. Every time I tried to get the shot I wanted
> with the digital I found myself thinking that I could just switch the lens
> to a [insert focal length here] on my Z-1p. I understand that the EI-200 is
> really just a point and shoot, and should be compared with other point and
> shoot cameras, however, I don't think I could go back to using a P&S as my
> standard camera.
>
> If Pentax really want to scoop the pool, all they need to do is bring out a
> digital MZ-50 for the same price as the MZ-S. They wouldn't get them out
> the door quick enough.
>
I'm sure that they would if they could! Hopefully they're working on
it. I think that being the first to offer an affordable digital SLR
sounds very Pentax, don't you?:-)
Isaac
> Cheers
>
> Jon
>
> Relax! Take life as it comes, you can't chase the sun, you can't race the wind
>
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
