Quoted: Good points there. Grab a camera that accepts readily available batteries. Also, keep in mind that not all countries use 110volts, so you'll need a transformer for those rechargables.
It's hard to generalize I guess. Most folks find disks, compact flash, etc to be expensive. To get a 6 megapixel resolution takes up a lot of disk space. Also for fast , split second shots, you can't beat film unless the digital SLR someone bought cost like $600 or more. Also most point & shoot film cameras are instant "on". Most digital cameras take 3-5 seconds to actually turn on, and the shutters are slow as well, then you have to aim, compose, shoot, and you might just miss a very nice photo opportunity within 10 seconds!
Film never last forever over time. Some get eaten by mouse, get fried by the sun, get soaked in water, etc. Most die hard professionals into color photography prefer using color slides than negatives for color.
Someday, we'll find the holy grail. To me it would be pictures with no grain/ noise on digital. It shall be super fast, no delays, cheap costing interchangeable lenses, very high quality lenses, lightweight lenses and cameras, and of course, undeleteable unless of couse you told it to.
|
Storage space is relatively cheap...speedy storage is what costs. I bought a pair of 2gb CF cards for about $220 shipped the other day--that's about 320 pics on a 20d. They are 50x cards, so not 80x plus super mega cards, but I rarely shoot burst mode anyways. The biggest thing is that they are a fixed expense--if I shot 20 rolls of film a year and developed them, that's 20 * $2 (assuming cheap film at wallyworld) + 20 * $4 (cheap developing at wally world) = $120. That's versus one 2gb card, which will last me a few years for just under the cost of 20 rolls of film (240 shots). Last year I was over 5,000 shots--digital. In film I'd be broke off my ass and selling guns to support that on top of gear purchases. No thanks. As for prints, I can choose which ones I'm willing to actually print. The keep rate for shots is pretty low, even on film, but with Digital I get the choice of which ones I'm willing to pay for to print. The ones I like, I print. Either at home on my 4x6 printer or at target/wallyworld/shutterfly for $.22. Not to mention lag time between processing and potential editing I can do at my pc.
To sum up, 5,000 shots is about $1200 in film and processing--I spent that money for a better gear instead. (24-70 f2.8! Macro ring light! New 2gb cards! woohooo!!
)
As for the rest, well, technology improves over time and so will the bodies. Heck I bought a Digital Rebel (300d) for $350 the other day. Had a small crack in the housing. It still works great! Film bodies just aren't getting the engineering eyeballs anymore, though. Once digital bodies start getting better dynamic range in them, you'll see an even wider move towards digital in places not already going. Will they ever completely replace film? No! There's not any popular B&W sensors for digital as far as I know--that would be an interesting project for a manuf. to take up. Imagine the quality of shots you could do with that.
(eta)
As for startup/shutter lag, on a good DSLR, it's minimal or not practically there. 20d/350d (i don't know nikon's times, but I'd guess similar) I can grab from the bag, turn on, and be focusing in about the same amount of time as it takes for me to grab the film body, get the right mode, and focus. Yes I've tried that one--I still have a Rebel 2000 that gets used on occasion.
Granted I am probably not as typical as most recretational shooters, but for hobby-type folks, and pros who have deadlines, I think digital is going to fill their needs and wants 95% or more of the time anymore. Low-end hobbiest who waste their time with a digital SLR and crappy lenses would be better served with a cheaper point-n-shoot unit in many cases. Heck I wouldn't mind having one for some things, but I appreciate the shots I do get when I can use the slr, because I know that many of them wouldn't be the same quality or near as 'good' without. Folks who shoot a couple hundred shots a year could go digital or film and probably not be too far off the cost either way.
(/eta)
Still film, like B&W, 8mm film (not still film), vinyl, cassette tapes, and many other things, will be relegated to an enthusiast/high-end/specialized role. Not today or next year...but in 5 years you'll probably be more suprised to see a pro shooting film anymore. There will always be ahderents who will rankle about the thought that digital could possibly replace film. I'm ok with that. I'd rather go shoot more shots and refine my skills than buy more film and wait for it to develop.
(eta2)
I see Buy.com has 1gb 12x CF cards for $35. So storage prices are coming down even more.
(/eta2)