digital or not?

Travel Forums Travel Photography digital or not?

  • 1
  • 2
Last Post This thread is marked as being about England
1. Posted by mirandasea (Full Member 20 posts) 17y Star this if you like it!

I'm going to travel for a year, and I love the idea of having concrete photos and lots of them, but not the money to develop them. But if I get a digital, I can only spend about 200-300 dollars on it, but I know it will be good because I can take more pics (but maybe less quality) and it will be smaller to carry and lighter than my nice big camera. I'm also worried about my bigger camera being lost or stolen (but i'll have insurance on it)

Does anyone have any advice as far as which is better? I'm going to be in London for a few months, then maybe Scotland, and I'll also be biking/ camping for a few months if all goes well.

2. Posted by iloveflyin (Full Member 159 posts) 17y Star this if you like it!

Hi miranda,

Like you I think travel experience and photography should go together. I travel a lot and take tons of pictures. Since I bought my first digital camera, I haven't used my film camera once! You can buy a 3-4 megapixel camera these days around $300. Quality wise, it is good enough for up to 8x10 size. I just came back from one day visit to San Francisco. I must have taken 300 shots, and not spent a cent for film processing. If I wanted to make 4x6 prints, it will cost me around 17 cents each. Otherwise, I put them in my harddrive, make CD copy, put them on the web or e-mail for friends to see. What you need to know is you should have some extra batteries, a charger, and extra media cards for your camera. Sometime, if I knew I would take more pictures than all my media cards combined (I have together 512 megabites), I brought along my labtop computer to download the pictures from my cards, when I ran out of space. About pictures quality, you will be amazed how a cheap 3.2 meg. digital camera can produce good quality pictures. Click below to see some of my pics with the 3.2 meg Kodak camera. (I upgraded my camera to a 6.3 meg Canon SRL ) If you have any ??? let me know! Glad to help.

3. Posted by bosquess (Budding Member 4 posts) 17y Star this if you like it!

Definitely Yes!!
On this days is the best choice. I work as a guide and most of my clients (around 96%) have digital stuff.
If you will buy a camera for filming or photographie, TRY TO INVEST ON QUALITY, it will pay in the long term, think you will have it for years and you will print only what you really want.
With a digital camera you will not have costs of developping problems and you'll be able to take all the photos you really want without thinking about the quantity.


4. Posted by Peter (Admin 7030 posts) 17y Star this if you like it!

I'm still a firm believer in film :) Nothing like the quality that it gives if you ask me, particularly if you have a good lense - an exceedingly expensive option with digital cameras. There's been quite some debate on this topic in another thread that may be of interest to you as well.

5. Posted by iloveflyin (Full Member 159 posts) 17y Star this if you like it!

It seems that this topic has been discussed before. I agree w/ you on some issue, Pete - such as good lens ... That's why I moved from a point and shoot Kodak 3.2 meg to Canon 300 D single lens reflex digital (6.3megapixel). I have, at the moment, 2 lenses for it : 18-55mm, and 70-300mm. For the same price you can buy the 8megapixel Sony F828 digital using Carl Zeis lens. Yes, 35mm film is still sharper than 8 meg. digital. However, you cannot tell the difference, unless you blow your print to at least 11x14. Most of us are amateurs anyway. We just want to record our trips and share with others on the net, or make 4x6 pics. With digital you can touch up with programs, such as Photoshop easily. With film, you have the hassle of worrying X-ray machines at the airport, send for developing, scan for e-mail, ect..., not counting the cost of buying films. If I had the money, I will buy a medium format film camera to go along with my 6.3 meg. digital. Otherwise, I am happy with digital.

6. Posted by dolphin (Full Member 11 posts) 17y Star this if you like it!

I think that a very good digital camera is too expensive for me.
I am a film photographer,I love KODAK E100VS,FUJI VELVIA etc.
I use excellent lenses and great camera bodies.
If I jump to digital I must win the loto!
An excellent ,value for money digital is the Canon poewrshot G1.
Try to find one.

7. Posted by iloveflyin (Full Member 159 posts) 17y Star this if you like it!

If I ever go back to film camera, I want to get a 6x7mm. Most of my pictures are outdoor. I owned a Mamiya 6x7 Pro at one time. Sold it to a friend who started a wedding photo business. My Canon Rebel digital camera is great for most of my travel pictures. Often, I would take hundreds of shots in a day trip, then select 10 or 15 good ones. If I had the money, I will pick up a 6x7mm film camera, and a drum scanner, for high resolution pics. I still have my darkroom equipment, which hasn't been used for over 20 years. I want to do some picture stories concerning local people in some remote villages in Viet Nam- maybe in April when I return to Vietnam.

8. Posted by mirandasea (Full Member 20 posts) 17y Star this if you like it!

So lets just say I decide to buy a digital camera. Is it still possible to get good quality photos but spend $300 max? That is my budget...oh, and I live in Toronto now, so where would be the best place to buy? It seems Henry's has good selection.


9. Posted by iloveflyin (Full Member 159 posts) 17y Star this if you like it!

For three hundred dollars you can still by a digital camera w/ acceptable quality photos. If you have time look at the site below for some camera previews.
As to quality, for $300, I don't think you can go wrong w/ Canon cameras, if you can find any at that price range. Next in line, in Minolta, Olympus, Kodak... Nikon is a bit more expensive (you pay for the name, too). All of my photos in my travel gallery you've seen were taken with a Kodak 3.2 meg. Most 3 megapixel camera will take decent pictures. Although, more megapixel cameras often means sharper pictures (higher resolution). As to the store in Toronto, I don't live there, so I don't know. But, compare your prices at some discount stores, local electronic stores with online prices. Here in the states, we have Costco, Sams (price clubs) where you often get better prices for cameras, eventhough, not as many choices as outside store. Go check around, and post prices and cameras you want to buy. I'm sure many of us can give you advices as to the camera you intend to buy.

10. Posted by bluewaav (Inactive 626 posts) 17y Star this if you like it!

I don't think that you can get a good digital camera in Canada for under $300. My dad just bought one this summer in the $500 range- it is a decent camera and takes pretty good pictures, and you can expand them bigger without them looking pixelated. A camera is an investment. You don't want to just buy one for one trip- you want it to last for when you get back and for the next trips! If you buy a cheap camera now, I think you will regret it later and it will limit the pictures you want to take. If you have a good film camera already and insurance, why don't you take that? Save the $300 for travelling!