[pct-l] digital photography.

[david_tibor at yahoo.com (David Tibor)]

> This old Advantix camera took better pictures (on
average) than my 2 MP digital, and was much more
reliable.

I can agree with that.  I took a 2 megapixel camera
with me to Europe a while back, and I'm stunned at the
difference between those pictures and the ones from my
4 megapixel camera (i.e the 2 MP pictures are pretty
poor).  If you haven't checked out output from a good
4 megapixel camera, you might want to - it's pretty
stellar.  (Of course, the image size goes up with the
number of megapixels, so fewer images fit on a media
card.)

I also agree that the macro use of a digital is pretty
fantastic.  My old Advantix camera could only focus up
to a couple feet away it seemed, and even with my
Canon S40 (which has a pretty long macro focus length
of a few inches) you can really get amazing pictures
of flowers, lichens, rocks, insects, rattlesnake
rattles :) or anything else.  Brings a whole new
experimental level to photography which I love.

And while I'm extolling the virtues of digital,
remember that you can take panoramic series that can
easily be stitched in a computer with pretty darn good
results typically.  And you can take movies with
sound, which I find are great more catching more of
the "vibe" of a hiking day or individual moment. 
Nothing better than filming yourself while glissading
down a snow field!

And of course, regardless of film or digital, you have
to get the media home somehow, unlost by the postal
service.  I'm definitely thinking about a portable CD
burner in the bounce box, since I can't bear to think
of losing a week's worth of amazing pictures.  Still
thinking about it though!

Dave.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree