Subject:
|
Re: Digital Photography
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 17 Jun 1999 19:19:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
497 times
|
| |
|
|
> What I'm wondering is if anyone has any experiences to compare with
> using a video camera vs a digital camera? I am thinking of spending
> about $500. Macro capability is very important for me.
You've got a few options:
1. Get your film processed onto disk, CD-ROM, or the Kodak Net. I'm sure
Kodak's web site has more info, or go down to your local Kodak film
developing drop off (not the instore developer) and inquire. Pros: cheap.
Cons: have to wait till you develop a whole roll of film and don't know if
the pictures are any good for a few days.
2. Get a camcorder adapter. Pros: moderately cheap ~$100. Cons: Picture
quality (at least what I've seen on a Snappy) is not so good. Look at a
freeze frame on your VCR, also it will be more bulky than a still camera.
3. Get a digital camera. I picked one up for my wife when our first child
was born so we could e-mail my in-laws (who are 3000 miles away) daily.
There are tons of things to consider so do your homework. The Mavica is
nice because it uses a standard 3 1/2" floppy for media, the Fuji I have
uses smart flash media which is much smaller and can hold more (up to 16MB).
Fuji and others now have a smart flash floppy adaptor to combat the Mavica.
Pros: The ultimate in flexibility. Cons: Expensive $200 ~ $700.
If you stay in touch with distant family and friends via the net, and you
have the budget, then #3 is the way to go.
-Rob.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Digital Photography
|
| I've been thinking about how to get my Lego website going, and with how long it takes me to get film developed, and then scanned, I think I need to go directly digital. I do have options though, I have a WinTV TV/Video Capture card. What I'm (...) (25 years ago, 17-Jun-99, to lugnet.general)
|
11 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
