Reading mode: Light Dark

Should I even buy a digital camera?

Go to last post
S

SWVodrey

Member
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
Location
OH, US
Dear Folks,

I hope to post photos of my artwork on the internet, either on E-Bay or on a website I may pay someone to put together for me. I have spent 2 hours on this wonderful website trying to educate myself about digital cameras, and feel only nominally more equipped to make the choice about even buying one in the first place.

My current camera does a pretty good job of photos of all the usual situations (vacation shots, family photos), and an average job of closeups. If I were to buy a digital camera, I would want to be able to take photos at really close range. I want to be able to show my really detailed and very colorful artwork (which is done on regular size chicken eggs) on the internet. I am not technically oriented, and am only considering cameras in the lower price ranges. Would I be better off simply taking my existing film to a place like Walmart which can turn it into digital photos for me, or should I take the plunge and get a digital camera? I didn't really see any discussion of the costs of developing digital photos compared to the old fashioned way of doing things too. Thanks to any and all who can help me make this decision!
--
swvodrey
 
SWVodrey said:
Dear Folks,

I hope to post photos of my artwork on the internet, either on
E-Bay or on a website I may pay someone to put together for me. I
have spent 2 hours on this wonderful website trying to educate
myself about digital cameras, and feel only nominally more equipped
to make the choice about even buying one in the first place.

My current camera does a pretty good job of photos of all the usual
situations (vacation shots, family photos), and an average job of
closeups. If I were to buy a digital camera, I would want to be
able to take photos at really close range. I want to be able to
show my really detailed and very colorful artwork (which is done on
regular size chicken eggs) on the internet. I am not technically
oriented, and am only considering cameras in the lower price
ranges. Would I be better off simply taking my existing film to a
place like Walmart which can turn it into digital photos for me, or
should I take the plunge and get a digital camera? I didn't really
see any discussion of the costs of developing digital photos
compared to the old fashioned way of doing things too. Thanks to
any and all who can help me make this decision!
--
swvodrey
Click to expand...
--

Answering your last question first, the price of having a lab print digital versus traditional film is pretty much the same. Some charge a minimal setup fee but most labs are trying to make the printing relatively inexpensive.

You can get very good quality from several name brand point and shoot cameras and some have closeup capability (some call it macro, but it's not that close).

My personal experience with the cheaper scan services is that they have not done a very good job for me (including Kodak) with 35mm. To get a good 35mm scan you will have to pay a few dollars per image. This will add up very quickly.

The real cost of digital is in needing to learn a bit more about digital camera features and handling files and image/work flow, but if you're considering 35mm scanning as an alternative you will have the same learning curve. If you are familiar with 35mm photography then the learning curve on the camera should not be that bad. It's just that there are alot more features on a digital camera than on your typical 35mm camera.

I would recommend a minimum of a 2.0 megapixel point and shoot. You can get decent 5x7 prints from most of them.

Jim DeLuco
DeLuco Photography
http://www.delucophoto.com
 
SWVodrey said:
Dear Folks,

I hope to post photos of my artwork on the internet, either on
E-Bay or on a website I may pay someone to put together for me. I
have spent 2 hours on this wonderful website trying to educate
myself about digital cameras, and feel only nominally more equipped
to make the choice about even buying one in the first place.

My current camera does a pretty good job of photos of all the usual
situations (vacation shots, family photos), and an average job of
closeups. If I were to buy a digital camera, I would want to be
able to take photos at really close range. I want to be able to
show my really detailed and very colorful artwork (which is done on
regular size chicken eggs) on the internet. I am not technically
oriented, and am only considering cameras in the lower price
ranges. Would I be better off simply taking my existing film to a
place like Walmart which can turn it into digital photos for me, or
should I take the plunge and get a digital camera? I didn't really
see any discussion of the costs of developing digital photos
compared to the old fashioned way of doing things too. Thanks to
any and all who can help me make this decision!
Click to expand...
If you are going to be posting photos on the internet, there is no additional cost for digital cameras once you have bought the camera. I can take a picture and have it on the web site in 5 minutes. With film, obviously you have to wait for the developing to come back and use a whole roll at a time (including purchasing the film and paying for developing).

One thing to ask yourself is how many pictures are you anticipating taking? How many pictures will you want for the web that you don't need prints of? How many pictures of your normal pictures are keepers? Remember with film you are paying to develop each of the pictures even if they are duds, while with digital you only pay for the pictures that you want to make prints of.

I currently use walmart.com to print my pictures. It costs $.26 for each 4x6 picture, and there is a shipping and handling fee of $1.38 for normal delivery for any number of pictures. If you have a walmart near you, you can have the pictures delivered to the store and the shipping cost is 0. Thus, to print say 24 pictures, it would cost $7.62 (24 * .26 + 1.38). Because it is all online, I can just upload the pictures even if the brick and morter store is closed and it gets mailed to my house. Digital cameras are more expensive than film cameras for the initial cost layout, but if you go through a lot of pictures, espeically if you don't print all of the pictures, you can make up the difference.

For web based prictures of egg sized items, most 1.3 or 2 megapixel cameras that have an optical zoom (as opposed to a fixed focus camera) should handle it. Look for a camera with a button with a picture of a flower on it -- this is the icon for macro mode to focus on close items. If you need to photograph items 2cm away from the lens, the Nikon cameras (espeically the 9xx series, dunno about the newer models) are supposed to be the best, but these are probably out of your price range. You might ask around your friends and relatives to see if somebody has a digital camera in the category you are looking at to see how well it works (ie, if your brother has a $2k Canon D60, you don't want to use that as the basis of comparison, unless you want to spend that kind of money).

What price range are you interested in? What size prints do you want to make for those pictures that you print (1.3 megapixels can do 5x7 prints, you probably want at least 2 megapixels for 8x10, some would argue higher)?
 
I've heard people say before that 'developing' digital into prints is about the same price as developing film. Where are you finding the same price??

Here in Canada, Walmart will print a 24 roll into 4x6 for about $5 CDN. The cheapest digital developing I can find is $0.50 for a 4x6, which amounts to $12 CDN for 24 pics, and then on top of that there is $3 shipping charge! I've been desperate to find a service that is cheaper. If you know please tell me!
Jim DeLuco said:
SWVodrey said:
Dear Folks,

I hope to post photos of my artwork on the internet, either on
E-Bay or on a website I may pay someone to put together for me. I
have spent 2 hours on this wonderful website trying to educate
myself about digital cameras, and feel only nominally more equipped
to make the choice about even buying one in the first place.

My current camera does a pretty good job of photos of all the usual
situations (vacation shots, family photos), and an average job of
closeups. If I were to buy a digital camera, I would want to be
able to take photos at really close range. I want to be able to
show my really detailed and very colorful artwork (which is done on
regular size chicken eggs) on the internet. I am not technically
oriented, and am only considering cameras in the lower price
ranges. Would I be better off simply taking my existing film to a
place like Walmart which can turn it into digital photos for me, or
should I take the plunge and get a digital camera? I didn't really
see any discussion of the costs of developing digital photos
compared to the old fashioned way of doing things too. Thanks to
any and all who can help me make this decision!
--
swvodrey
Click to expand...
--
Answering your last question first, the price of having a lab print
digital versus traditional film is pretty much the same. Some
charge a minimal setup fee but most labs are trying to make the
printing relatively inexpensive.

You can get very good quality from several name brand point and
shoot cameras and some have closeup capability (some call it macro,
but it's not that close).

My personal experience with the cheaper scan services is that they
have not done a very good job for me (including Kodak) with 35mm.
To get a good 35mm scan you will have to pay a few dollars per
image. This will add up very quickly.

The real cost of digital is in needing to learn a bit more about
digital camera features and handling files and image/work flow, but
if you're considering 35mm scanning as an alternative you will have
the same learning curve. If you are familiar with 35mm photography
then the learning curve on the camera should not be that bad. It's
just that there are alot more features on a digital camera than on
your typical 35mm camera.

I would recommend a minimum of a 2.0 megapixel point and shoot.
You can get decent 5x7 prints from most of them.

Jim DeLuco
DeLuco Photography
http://www.delucophoto.com
Click to expand...
 
Michael Meissner said:
If you are going to be posting photos on the internet, there is no
additional cost for digital cameras once you have bought the
camera. I can take a picture and have it on the web site in 5
minutes. With film, obviously you have to wait for the developing
to come back and use a whole roll at a time (including purchasing
the film and paying for developing).

One thing to ask yourself is how many pictures are you anticipating
taking? How many pictures will you want for the web that you don't
need prints of? How many pictures of your normal pictures are
keepers? Remember with film you are paying to develop each of the
pictures even if they are duds, while with digital you only pay for
the pictures that you want to make prints of.

I currently use walmart.com to print my pictures. It costs $.26
for each 4x6 picture, and there is a shipping and handling fee of
$1.38 for normal delivery for any number of pictures. If you have
a walmart near you, you can have the pictures delivered to the
store and the shipping cost is 0. Thus, to print say 24 pictures,
it would cost $7.62 (24 * .26 + 1.38). Because it is all online, I
can just upload the pictures even if the brick and morter store is
closed and it gets mailed to my house. Digital cameras are more
expensive than film cameras for the initial cost layout, but if you
go through a lot of pictures, espeically if you don't print all of
the pictures, you can make up the difference.

For web based prictures of egg sized items, most 1.3 or 2 megapixel
cameras that have an optical zoom (as opposed to a fixed focus
camera) should handle it. Look for a camera with a button with a
picture of a flower on it -- this is the icon for macro mode to
focus on close items. If you need to photograph items 2cm away
from the lens, the Nikon cameras (espeically the 9xx series, dunno
about the newer models) are supposed to be the best, but these are
probably out of your price range. You might ask around your
friends and relatives to see if somebody has a digital camera in
the category you are looking at to see how well it works (ie, if
your brother has a $2k Canon D60, you don't want to use that as the
basis of comparison, unless you want to spend that kind of money).

What price range are you interested in? What size prints do you
want to make for those pictures that you print (1.3 megapixels can
do 5x7 prints, you probably want at least 2 megapixels for 8x10,
some would argue higher)?
Click to expand...
Just to add one more point: the processing isn't just in the printing. One dirty little secret about digital is all of the editing that you need/want to do.

Get a couple of rolls of film put onto a CD and try out some of the photo editors. If you can't stand working with them, stick to film.
 
If you are primarily doing close up shots for the web, you should go for it. The Nikon cameras (995/5000) have excellent macro (close up) capability that lets you get the camera very close to the subject. If you want really nice looking pictures, a camera with external flash capability will help.If you are not printing the pictures, and just posting to the web, digital is cheaper and quicker. You will have a learning curve to perfect your camera and post processing (Photoshop, Elements etc) techniques.

Good luck - Sean
 
I guess one thing to remember about printing digital as well is that you know what you're getting, so EVERY shot is good.

Man I hope Walmart starts their online printing service in Canada soon!
Michael Meissner said:
SWVodrey said:
Dear Folks,

I hope to post photos of my artwork on the internet, either on
E-Bay or on a website I may pay someone to put together for me. I
have spent 2 hours on this wonderful website trying to educate
myself about digital cameras, and feel only nominally more equipped
to make the choice about even buying one in the first place.

My current camera does a pretty good job of photos of all the usual
situations (vacation shots, family photos), and an average job of
closeups. If I were to buy a digital camera, I would want to be
able to take photos at really close range. I want to be able to
show my really detailed and very colorful artwork (which is done on
regular size chicken eggs) on the internet. I am not technically
oriented, and am only considering cameras in the lower price
ranges. Would I be better off simply taking my existing film to a
place like Walmart which can turn it into digital photos for me, or
should I take the plunge and get a digital camera? I didn't really
see any discussion of the costs of developing digital photos
compared to the old fashioned way of doing things too. Thanks to
any and all who can help me make this decision!
Click to expand...
If you are going to be posting photos on the internet, there is no
additional cost for digital cameras once you have bought the
camera. I can take a picture and have it on the web site in 5
minutes. With film, obviously you have to wait for the developing
to come back and use a whole roll at a time (including purchasing
the film and paying for developing).

One thing to ask yourself is how many pictures are you anticipating
taking? How many pictures will you want for the web that you don't
need prints of? How many pictures of your normal pictures are
keepers? Remember with film you are paying to develop each of the
pictures even if they are duds, while with digital you only pay for
the pictures that you want to make prints of.

I currently use walmart.com to print my pictures. It costs $.26
for each 4x6 picture, and there is a shipping and handling fee of
$1.38 for normal delivery for any number of pictures. If you have
a walmart near you, you can have the pictures delivered to the
store and the shipping cost is 0. Thus, to print say 24 pictures,
it would cost $7.62 (24 * .26 + 1.38). Because it is all online, I
can just upload the pictures even if the brick and morter store is
closed and it gets mailed to my house. Digital cameras are more
expensive than film cameras for the initial cost layout, but if you
go through a lot of pictures, espeically if you don't print all of
the pictures, you can make up the difference.

For web based prictures of egg sized items, most 1.3 or 2 megapixel
cameras that have an optical zoom (as opposed to a fixed focus
camera) should handle it. Look for a camera with a button with a
picture of a flower on it -- this is the icon for macro mode to
focus on close items. If you need to photograph items 2cm away
from the lens, the Nikon cameras (espeically the 9xx series, dunno
about the newer models) are supposed to be the best, but these are
probably out of your price range. You might ask around your
friends and relatives to see if somebody has a digital camera in
the category you are looking at to see how well it works (ie, if
your brother has a $2k Canon D60, you don't want to use that as the
basis of comparison, unless you want to spend that kind of money).

What price range are you interested in? What size prints do you
want to make for those pictures that you print (1.3 megapixels can
do 5x7 prints, you probably want at least 2 megapixels for 8x10,
some would argue higher)?
Click to expand...
 
hardsuit wrote:
consider the folowing, If you still go the film route rolls of film cost little.
the real price is in finishing, 24x 1set about $10 in qulaity labs.
yes, they can upload to web, but its tempoary 30 days.
better option , put on to CD . its 2mp for 100's of shots. CD about $8.
from here you can put them on the web. the thing is that all shots ,
with film camera are recorded, not only good ones and no preview .
you may have to reshot sometimes. you said EGGS . well not many cameras
can focus down to tht size w/o lenses. good if you have theese.

now enter digital . you do not need expensive digicam . 2mp 3x optical
should do it. fuji fineix 2600 my pick . its about $280 2mp plenty,
and 3x optical zoom with MACRO . this allows stills to 2 or 3 inches .
crisp focus and detail . watch out though . the flash somtimes crops .
you may not allways get coverage. you can angle camera or back away ,
to help with this. you can also use slave flash to side to balance shot.
the best thing for digital . no wasted shots , just erease shoot again.
email only those perfect shots.
--
' lets see what's out there.....engage'
 
Malibuss66 said:
I've heard people say before that 'developing' digital into prints
is about the same price as developing film. Where are you finding
the same price??

Here in Canada, Walmart will print a 24 roll into 4x6 for about $5
CDN. The cheapest digital developing I can find is $0.50 for a
4x6, which amounts to $12 CDN for 24 pics, and then on top of that
there is $3 shipping charge! I've been desperate to find a service
that is cheaper. If you know please tell me!
Click to expand...
--

My professional lab charges the same price..and my local one hour lab charges the same price, but a setup charge. It probably depends on the region you are in and the competition in the area.

Jim DeLuco
DeLuco Photography
http://www.delucophoto.com
 
Dear all,

Thank you so very much for your timely and informative replies to my question. I have never asked a question in a forum before, and have been really pleased by all the responses. I was originally going to write back to each person to say thanks, but then I looked at some of the other threads with thousands of replies and realized life is too short to thank everyone individually. I think I shall be buying a relatively cheap digital camera, and now feel better informed than I was at this same time yesterday.

Muchas gracias to all!
S. W. Vodrey
 
Definitely I think for website work a 2mp digital camera is the way to go. Basically it comes down to the fact that digital is FREE after the initial set up if you're not printing pictures. To get from so-so to great macro capability with a film camera may cost as much as a digital camera anyway. Many digital cameras come out of the box with great macro capabilities.

The Nikon Coolpix 995 is pretty much undesputed as the king of macro shots. It's been discontinued and replaced with the Nikon 5000 but you don't really need the 4mp of the Nikon 5000. You could probably get a Nikon 995 used or refurbished somewhere.

And there are other great macro cameras out there, the Fuji 2600 zoom is a really nice little camera but I'm not sure about it's macro capabilities.
SWVodrey said:
Dear Folks,

I hope to post photos of my artwork on the internet, either on
E-Bay or on a website I may pay someone to put together for me. I
have spent 2 hours on this wonderful website trying to educate
myself about digital cameras, and feel only nominally more equipped
to make the choice about even buying one in the first place.

My current camera does a pretty good job of photos of all the usual
situations (vacation shots, family photos), and an average job of
closeups. If I were to buy a digital camera, I would want to be
able to take photos at really close range. I want to be able to
show my really detailed and very colorful artwork (which is done on
regular size chicken eggs) on the internet. I am not technically
oriented, and am only considering cameras in the lower price
ranges. Would I be better off simply taking my existing film to a
place like Walmart which can turn it into digital photos for me, or
should I take the plunge and get a digital camera? I didn't really
see any discussion of the costs of developing digital photos
compared to the old fashioned way of doing things too. Thanks to
any and all who can help me make this decision!
--
swvodrey
Click to expand...
 
SWVodrey said:
I hope to post photos of my artwork on the internet, either on
Click to expand...
How often would this be ? I love my digital camera, but I use
it a lot. I think if I were only going to be needing a few images
in digital form every year, a regular camera might not be such a
bad idea. You'll have to pay to have the images in digital form,
but you wouldn't have to buy a digital camera.

On the other hand, if you need at least a 100 or so images
every year, buying a digital camera will pay for itself in a year
or two.

And then, of course, if you buy a digital camera you might find it
quickly becomes a fun hobby. But that's a hard thing for us
to guess about, not knowing you. Some people get "hooked"
on digital photography, others don't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top