Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/01/29

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Moderately OT: Scanner or Digital Camera?
From: "animal" <s.jessurun95@chello.nl>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 04:24:02 +0100
References: <9DC7B072-33CE-11D7-8096-000393802534@mac.com>

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

Replies: Reply from Mark Rabiner <mark@rabinergroup.com> (Re: [Leica] Moderately OT: Scanner or Digital Camera?)
Reply from Tina Manley <images@InfoAve.Net> (Re: [Leica] Moderately OT: Scanner or Digital Camera?)
In reply to: Message from Martin Howard <mvhoward@mac.com> ([Leica] Moderately OT: Scanner or Digital Camera?)