Digital in Latin America

Richard Cline <dcline.DeleteThis@silcom.com> wrote:
 > If you decide to go digital, be sure to get the camera well ahead of
 > time so you can learn to operate it properly. Most of the digital
 > cameras have a distinct delay between button pushing and the picture
 > taking. For someone accustomed to a film camera the delay is the
 > difference between a good photo and a bad photo.

This is pretty similar to the delay imposed by any other autofocus cameras
of similar form factor (i.e., the little tiny ones are slow and the larger
SLR-sized ones are pretty quick).

In almost all cases this is easily solved by learning to pre-focus - just
hold the shutter release halfway down and it'll take focus and exposure
measurements. Then when you actually push it the rest of the way it's very
fast.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://travel.u.nu" target="_blank">http://travel.u.nu</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Digital in Latin America 

On 15 Aug 2003 21:04:34 -0700, regadodli.RemoveThis@hotmail.com (Asaf) wrote:
 > A decent camera would cost about $700. this
 > being said, theft in those countries is a factor as well

Theft is a factor in all countries including yours, that is for sure.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Digital in Latin America 

"Asaf" <regadodli.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:44e71ca0.0308152004.54998313@posting.google.com...
 > theft in those countries is a factor as well, especially
 > when the pictured are saved with the camera and cannot be easily
 > separated as in films

Huh?
Pictures in digital cameras worth taking for a trip are saved to removable storage
(Compact Flash or such.) Buy several cards, they come in capacities from 32 MB to
1-2 G and you are set. Moreover, if you buy an inexpensive memory card reader
($20.00-30.00 US), you will be able connect it to a computer in internet cafes and
upload your pictures to some storage on the web if you have any at your disposal (if
you don't - get some...Your ISP may provide some free of charge or for a few bucks.)
Some cameras can be directly connected to a computer via USB and their card is seen
as an external disk. If you have $700.00 to spend take a look at Canon G5.

--
 ><emeL><
....nothin' ain't worth nothin', but it's free...<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Digital in Latin America 

If you are serious about taking pictures, a digital camera is the only way
to go. Last year I spent two and a half months in China with a Canon G2, 2
batteries, a 1 Gig IBM microdrive and a 20 Gig Nixvue Vista to store my
images. It can hold about 10,000 images. I came home with about 6,000
images. Try carrying that much film. Also no worries about x-ray.

In China, most internet cafes weren't equipped for burning disks, they were
mostly game rooms for Counter Strike.

They have cheap batteries on EBay. You can carry a few so you don't have to
worry about power.

I got a little belt pouch for my camera and batteries and wore it constantly
and then got a cheap but adequate tripod in Shanghai that I could fit in my
back pocket if need be.

Just by having that much capacity will encourage you to take more pictures
and by seeing them as you take them you will end up taking better pictures.

This was my first digital trip and now my wife wants to go back reshoot all
our previous trips.

I'm planning a trip similar to yours this fall.

Buen Viaje





"Asaf" <regadodli.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:44e71ca0.0308152004.54998313@posting.google.com...
 > Hi,
 >
 > I plan on traveling to Galapagos, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia for 5
 > weeks. The trip will get rough sometimes with 5 days in the jungle or
 > 10 days on a boat leaving so little time to refuel a digital camera. I
 > am perplexed on whether should I bring my SLR (Cannon Rabel 2000,
 > 28-300mm Tamron lens) or should I take the plunge and buy a digital
 > camera for that trip. A decent camera would cost about $700. this
 > being said, theft in those countries is a factor as well, especially
 > when the pictured are saved with the camera and cannot be easily
 > separated as in films
 >
 > I doubt that short battery life and limited memory will be able to
 > compete with the traditional camera, though I will feel bad developing
 > the films after the trip and learn things that would be better learned
 > after I take the picture, where I can still correct them.
 >
 > As you can understand I like both worlds but need your help in
 > deciding on the best one. if you have any experience traveling with a
 > digital in such trip, please tell me what you think. any other advices
 > would be greatly appreciated (like, what should I look in a camera to
 > be suited for such trip?)
 >
 > Thanks!
 > Asaf.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Digital in Latin America 

"Lumpy" <ruacb.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dRI%a.3840$9F2.171138@twister.socal.rr.com...
 > If you are serious about taking pictures, a digital camera is the only way
 > to go. Last year I spent two and a half months in China with a Canon G2,


Nonsense. Try making an 8x10 or larger enlargement from your 4MP digital camera and
you'll kiss and make up with traditional film pretty quickly... (or run out and shell
out some serious $$$ for a 6-8 MP digital camera...) The truth is that in terms of
output quality, a $100 point-and-shoot camera beats your digital gizmo hands down...

--
 ><emeL><
....nothin' ain't worth nothin', but it's free...<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Digital in Latin America 

In article <vjutkg4rtt9u4a RemoveThis @corp.supernews.com>, eMeL wrote:

 > Nonsense. Try making an 8x10 or larger enlargement from your 4MP digital camera and
 > you'll kiss and make up with traditional film pretty quickly...

Actually, I've made half a dozen 8x10 enlargements of shots taken with my
3.2MP camera, not even in full-resolution mode, and I'm *quite* happy with
them.

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mike Graham | Metalworker, rustic, part-time zealot.
mike RemoveThis @metalmangler.com |
<http://www.metalmangler.com>| Caledon, Ontario, Canada

Lousy photographer with a really nice camera - Olympus C3020Zoom.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Digital in Latin America 

eMeL <badbatz99.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
 > Nonsense. Try making an 8x10 or larger enlargement from your 4MP digital
 > camera and you'll kiss and make up with traditional film pretty quickly...

I've made lots of 8x10s from my 3 megapixel camera and I'm quite happy with
the results. As good as anything I've gotten out of various point-and-shoot
35mms, including pretty decent ones.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://travel.u.nu" target="_blank">http://travel.u.nu</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Digital in Latin America 

"Miguel Cruz" <mnc.DeleteThis@admin.u.nu> wrote in message
news:a%a.7052$Bo6.5368@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
 > eMeL <badbatz99.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
  > > Nonsense. Try making an 8x10 or larger enlargement from your 4MP digital
  > > camera and you'll kiss and make up with traditional film pretty quickly...
 >
 > I've made lots of 8x10s from my 3 megapixel camera and I'm quite happy with
 > the results. As good as anything I've gotten out of various point-and-shoot
 > 35mms, including pretty decent ones.

Sorry, but your "I'm quite happy with the results" (which is great, nota bene!)
doesn't cut it, and the physics and physiology of human sight are on my side. You
need a 300 DPI print to approximate photographic quality and at 300 DPI the largest
print you can get from a 3 megapixel camera is approx. 5.5x6.5". You can get a
8x9.6" print at 200 DPI but is pure crap in comparison to a print from film.

If you like your results - great!!!

--
 ><emeL><
....nothin' ain't worth nothin', but it's free...<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Digital in Latin America 

I make and sell my photographs for a living. The 4 MP file gives me
excellent cropped 8X10 images.

"eMeL" <badbatz99 RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vjutkg4rtt9u4a@corp.supernews.com...
 > "Lumpy" <ruacb RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
 > news:dRI%a.3840$9F2.171138@twister.socal.rr.com...
  > > If you are serious about taking pictures, a digital camera is the only
way
  > > to go. Last year I spent two and a half months in China with a Canon
G2,
 >
 >
 > Nonsense. Try making an 8x10 or larger enlargement from your 4MP digital
camera and
 > you'll kiss and make up with traditional film pretty quickly... (or run
out and shell
 > out some serious $$$ for a 6-8 MP digital camera...) The truth is that in
terms of
 > output quality, a $100 point-and-shoot camera beats your digital gizmo
hands down...
 >
 > --
  > ><emeL><
 > ...nothin' ain't worth nothin', but it's free...
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Digital in Latin America 

"Lumpy" <ruacb.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:FVO%a.5236$Wo1.240630@twister.socal.rr.com...
 > I make and sell my photographs for a living. The 4 MP file gives me
 > excellent cropped 8X10 images.

I feel sorry for your customers.
For "near-photographic quality" you'll need a 212 DPI print and for "photographic
quality" 300 DPI print.
From a 4 Megapixel frame at 300 DPI you can print approx 6.5x7.5".

You need a 7.2 megapixel frame to get a 8x10" print at 300 DPI.

--
 ><emeL><
....nothin' ain't worth nothin', but it's free...<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Digital in Latin America 

eMeL <badbatz99 RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
 > "Miguel Cruz" <mnc RemoveThis @admin.u.nu> wrote:
  >> I've made lots of 8x10s from my 3 megapixel camera and I'm quite happy with
  >> the results. As good as anything I've gotten out of various point-and-shoot
  >> 35mms, including pretty decent ones.
 >
 > Sorry, but your "I'm quite happy with the results" (which is great, nota
 > bene!) doesn't cut it, and the physics and physiology of human sight are
 > on my side. You need a 300 DPI print to approximate photographic quality
 > and at 300 DPI the largest print you can get from a 3 megapixel camera is
 > approx. 5.5x6.5". You can get a 8x9.6" print at 200 DPI but is pure crap
 > in comparison to a print from film.

Most people can't tell the difference between 200dpi and 300dpi without a
loupe (and some serious prompting from the person who handed it to them).
Sure, the eye is capable of it, but people don't care and don't know what to
look for.

For any casual user the digital is just fine.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://travel.u.nu" target="_blank">http://travel.u.nu</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Digital in Latin America 

You don't need to be sorry for my customers. They have eyes.

Apparently you are good at math but not at working with digital images.
Have you heard of re-sampling?

"eMeL" <badbatz99.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vjvheugpq9g101@corp.supernews.com...
 > "Lumpy" <ruacb.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
 > news:FVO%a.5236$Wo1.240630@twister.socal.rr.com...
  > > I make and sell my photographs for a living. The 4 MP file gives me
  > > excellent cropped 8X10 images.
 >
 > I feel sorry for your customers.
 > For "near-photographic quality" you'll need a 212 DPI print and for
"photographic
 > quality" 300 DPI print.
 > From a 4 Megapixel frame at 300 DPI you can print approx 6.5x7.5".
 >
 > You need a 7.2 megapixel frame to get a 8x10" print at 300 DPI.
 >
 > --
  > ><emeL><
 > ...nothin' ain't worth nothin', but it's free...
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Digital in Latin America 

You can get a great digital cam for $300. Spend the extra money on a couple
of extra 128 meg memory cards. Many photo shops and cyber cafes can transfer
your pix directly from the cam to CD rom, allowing you to both free up
memory and know that you have the pix permanently saved. Worked out great
for me, and I had never used my new cam before my trip. Finally read the
manual about five days before the end of the two week trip. I love my pix
and my digicam. Go digital.
"Asaf" <regadodli RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:44e71ca0.0308152004.54998313@posting.google.com...
 > Hi,
 >
 > I plan on traveling to Galapagos, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia for 5
 > weeks. The trip will get rough sometimes with 5 days in the jungle or
 > 10 days on a boat leaving so little time to refuel a digital camera. I
 > am perplexed on whether should I bring my SLR (Cannon Rabel 2000,
 > 28-300mm Tamron lens) or should I take the plunge and buy a digital
 > camera for that trip. A decent camera would cost about $700. this
 > being said, theft in those countries is a factor as well, especially
 > when the pictured are saved with the camera and cannot be easily
 > separated as in films
 >
 > I doubt that short battery life and limited memory will be able to
 > compete with the traditional camera, though I will feel bad developing
 > the films after the trip and learn things that would be better learned
 > after I take the picture, where I can still correct them.
 >
 > As you can understand I like both worlds but need your help in
 > deciding on the best one. if you have any experience traveling with a
 > digital in such trip, please tell me what you think. any other advices
 > would be greatly appreciated (like, what should I look in a camera to
 > be suited for such trip?)
 >
 > Thanks!
 > Asaf.
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Digital in Latin America