Cost isn't the only comparison. With my cheap, (ok only relatively),
film scanner 35 mm film gives me approximately 9 Megapixels worth of data
vs the
current best, (the upcoming Pentax and Contax full frame 35mm), digital
cameras 6
Megapixels. This doesn't approach the actual data stored in the film. New
film
scanners with 4000 dpi resolution have 20 Megapixel resolutions with no other
changes in equipment. It will be a long time before a pure digital
solution will
give that kind of resolution. If you do your own scanning you can correct
for color
casts in both slides and negatives. Finally I don't know about the Pentax
E200 but
the instructions for the Digital Camera I own recommend against using
either NIMH
or Ni-Cad rechargeable batteries.
When you bring cost into it, my entire system PC, Monitor, Scanner and
Printer,
hell I'll even include my most expensive film camera body and that still
doesn't
come close to the rumored street prices of $7000.00 US to $9000.00 US being
bandied about for the Pentax 6 Megapixel body.
True if all you are looking at is a camera to produce images for the
internet then
the IE 200 is over kill. If you are interested in an occasional 4x5 or 5x7
inch print
then you will probably be satisfied with 2-3 Megapixel resolutions. If you
want
good quality hard copy, (prints that is), of 8X10 or larger, and don't want
to spend
a fortune on having some technician using some very expensive system to
massage your
images until they are acceptable for large prints, it will be a long time
before digital
cameras are up to the cost quality ratio of film or even a film digital
solution.
At 11:39 PM 6/23/2001 -0400, Isaac wrote:
>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 .
-
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 .
