Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/01/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I,d get a smaller digital camera .I use a digital ixus and find it,s good enough for web use.Also vey small. Here is one. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=889034 regards simon jessurun > The Internet is a great way to keep in touch with people. Posting > photographs on the Internet doubly so. However, at the moment, I find > myself with lots of friends, but no way of getting photographs onto the > Internet. If money were no issue, then it wouldn't be a problem, but > one of the things that makes life so fun and challenging is that money > is always an issue... ;) > > Right now, I have no digital camera, nor any scanner. I'm trying to > decide what I should do about this, and I'd like to hear how you have > addressed the same issues. At the moment, my options appear to be > these: > > A) Get a "cheap" digital camera. Since I'll pretty much only be using > it for web stuff, I could get away with buying something like a > point-and-shoot. The high-end ones, like the PowerShot G3, seems like > an interesting alternative that has the advantage that you could do > more serious things with it too. Major disadvantage is that it's going > to be obsolete pretty damn quickly (18 months? 24 months?) > > B) Get a "prosumer" digital camea. This means something like a Nikon > D-100 or Canon D-60. Interchangable lens SLR that would also work with > 35mm film bodies. Advantages include better quality, more versitile > equipment, and will become obsolete less quickly (since I can use > lenses on several bodies). Lots of fun with new toys. Major > disadvantage is, of course, cost. Figure on $2,000 for the body, plus > lenses. > > C) Get a film scanner. I pretty much am never going to make digital > prints -- I use my Leica's and Bessa's for that. I prefer shooting > with them (small, useful, lots of lenses, accessories, etc). So, I was > thinking that maybe I should just shoot film and get a reasonably > decent scanner instead. All the advantages of doing my own > development, along with not having to buy a new camera outfit. But > what about cost? I'd not want to spend much more than about $800 on a > scanner (since it'd have the same lifetime disadvantages as a > point-and-shoot digital). Can you get decent quality for that? > > Any thoughts? What did *you* do? A, B, or C? > > (And for our Swedish audience, the answer: "På A svarar vi nej, på B > svarar vi D-100, och på C vet vi inte" is not considered an acceptable > answer... ;) > > M. > > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html