[pct-l] Lightweight Digital Camera

[pcnst2@xxxxxxxxxxxx (David hiking PCNST in bits)]

> 1) 35 MM camera still offer better quality photos than digital. Assuming
> that you're a reasonably good photographer.
> 2) The new 4 megapixel digital cameras do take good pictures. Combined with
> a digital projector, it's often difficult to tell the difference from a 35
> mm slide.

In my view the really extreme shortcoming of typical digital cameras is that
they can't handle really contrasty scenes with the 256 levels of intensity
available in the usual image formats (I don't know whether the low-end CCD's
are capable of better).     This means that if you have shadows and snow
you're not likely to be able to see any details in either the pure white
snow or the pure black shadows.    More megapixels doesn't help.
Film has a lot more latitude for adjusting
things to be the way you meant, more so if it's printed.
So if you REALLY think you might be taking photos for enlargement and
publication and sale, you'd probably find a film camera preferable.
Computer graphics systems don't usually support more than 256 intensity
levels, so none of this matters unless you want to print it out.

None of this matters if your main use is to provide pictures for the web,
or if you live up north where the sun don't shine often (but look out when
it does).     There the dark bottoms of forested canyons have another
problem: it's hard to hold a small lens camera still long enough to get a good
picture.    Again, megapixels don't help.   A tripod does, unless the subjects
are moving, and not at an effective distance for flash,
in which case only a faster (larger, heavier) lens helps.    Using flash all
the time does take a toll on your batteries though.    I've found freshly
charged NiMH batteries seem to be good for a week or more if I don't use flash.

I'm currently using an Olympus D520Z for well-lit scenes and a C3040Z with
tripod for darker occasions, when I'm willing to carry it.   But my photos
just go on my web sites.