digital camera question--cost savings????

[Mad4Dizne]

We have been thinking about getting a relatively inexpensive digital camera (Kodak--C300) with additional memory card (would run about $200). I thought in the long run it would save us money on photos of our trip, 1)because you don't have to develop every photo and 2) alot cheaper than traditional photo developing.... would it make sense to get a digital video camera with still picture ability??? (JVC has one for under $300!!!) or just get the digital camera?. And how can you figure out how many pictures you can keep in memory/got confused with the memory descriptions....Any thoughts would be apprecitated!!!!

TIA!!!!

 

[cobbler]

I do believe that the video camera with digital photo option is about a 1mp. You might not like the quality of prints with that. I would suggest a minimum of a 3mp camera.

The higher the mp the larger prints you can make without it looking pixelated. I think with a 3 you can go up to a 5x7.

Also you can get another memory card that will hold a lot for a lot less than 200. They have sales all the time and I think even 512mp cards are around 50 or less now.

 

[bicker]

Printing your own digital photos is actually a lot more expensive than getting professionally-finished film photos. However, as you pointed out, with digital, you have the ability to cull through perhaps hundreds of shots you take during your trip, and pick out the portion that are worth having prints of. You can even crop and touch-up those shots yourself, and then have them professionally-finished, at prices and quality comparable to printing of film photos. There are a few applications for which you still are better-off with film, but vacation photos is not one of those applications.

Definitely factor the price of additional memory into your computations. There are a lot of approaches to off-load digital photos from the camera to some other device -- I found them all to be a PITA. It's far far easier, and now very affordable, to just get a few extra 500 MB memory cards. You may want to consider the difference in the price of memory when considering which camera to get. For example, we like Canon digital cameras, but some of the less expensive ones use SD memory, while some of the older models use Compact Flash, which is a lot less expensive. Comparing just the camera-body price could lead you to make the wrong decision. (Of course, memory prices change over time: Compact Flash is perhaps reaching the lowest it will ever be, while SD is still decreasing in price.)

 

[aengus]

Years ago I had a sony 820 that had picture capability and I did just that to a trip to WDW. Cobbler is right on! The pictures were horrible, I felt like I lost the memories of our trip. I figured I was saving money and space by using the camcorder and all we got were no pictures. A 3mp picture is great for 4x6 and 5x7 pictures. I havent personally used a kodak c300 but that should do just fine for you. I picked up a sony 7mp for $292 on ebay so you should be able to score a good 3mp camera with some memory for a good price.

 

[disneysteve]

I also vote for a separate camera for much better resolution.

As for cost, definitely cheaper to go digital. You can shoot 10 times more pictures and just print the ones you really like (after cropping and removing red-eye). That way you only pay for the ones you want as opposed to film where you pay for everything including the ones where you forgot to remove the lens cap or accidentally snapped a shot of your feet.

Printing digital photos has gotten really cheap thanks to Wal-Mart who now charges $.18/print. Other places have started lowering their prices to compete. When I got my camera a couple of years ago, the going price was $.29/print.

So to compare, let's say you take a trip and shoot 240 pictures (10 rolls of 24-exp film). Film is about $4/roll. Developing is about $6/roll. So that's about $100.
With the digital, you shoot 500 photos (twice as many). You print 240 of them at $.18 each. So that's about $43 for the same number of prints and all good pictures. Yes, there is the upfront cost of the memory cards, but they an be erased and reused over and over.

 

[AngieInOH]

Go for the digital! You'll love it, love it, love it!!!!

I got one last year at www.jr.com they'll match any price you find. This is what I did.... looked and looked for the best deal on the internet..... I found it at a very unreaputable, questionable web sites (the reviews I saw were terrible... they could send refurbished product, add extras on that you didn't want etc. But hey, they had the cheapest price!) I called a JR representative told him the price I found at another site, he said just a minute came back on the line and told me he'd match the price w/ free shipping. Yippie, I saved $75. I have only heard wonderful things about JR so you might want to check them out.

 

[shaylahc]

I definitely agree that digital is cheaper. Snapfish has 12 cent prints. When you figure an average place might charge you $8-10 to develop a 24 exposure roll of film.....12 cents times 24=$2.88. It's cheaper. Plus you only have to develop the pictures you like, so that saves you a bit in the long run, too.

 

[christinadei]

I have saved SOOOOOOOO much money since going to digital. I bought memory cards on sale and now I don't have to pay for film, developing a whole roll or getting the pics on cd. I am able to edit my pictures first and then order them from winkflash for .12 each. Not to mention no more black and white film, I can change the pictures to b&w before I order them if I want. I love it. It takes up so much less space too. I carry my new camera and camcorder in a camera bag smaller than the one I used to carry my camera in.

 

[lbgraves]

The thing that I love most about using digital cameras is that you know right then & there if the picture turned out...eyes closed, head turned, part of someone cut off in the shot. I have asked for one more shot with characters even because of this & I feel better walking away knowing that the picture will be great. It is also great to be able to edit for red eye or even crop the picture before uploading it to a site to get prints. Being able to do everything from home is a plus since I don't have to deal with the kids at the store while I go thru each picture.

 

[tlbwriter]

I know I save a ton of money by using digitial. The first time I went to Florida (not even WDW), I spent $80 developing and printing photos when I got back. And that's only the good photos - most places let you pick out the prints you want. But all the film still has to be developed, and also, once they're printed, I had a hard time letting them go even if they weren't great shots, or if I had two or three very similar shots. With digital photos, I've got them in the computer and don't feel compelled to print all of them.

 

[koopa]

Digital camera for the compact size. Mine goes in my pocket and it so easy to use. Along with the mp, you should look into the optical zoom. I have 3x, but I don't know what is recommended. The software that came with the camera can convert the photo to a black & white or a sepia. It is easy to crop and increase in size. Like the others have said, the software has filters to take out the red eye.

For now, I take my memory card to Sam's and print out 4x6 photos for $0.17 each. I can get a 5x7 for $0.68 and an 8x10 for < $2. I just bought a 512 mB SD memory card for about $38 after rebate from Best Buy. Last year, Officemax was giving away 64 mB memory cards during their day after Thanksgiving sale.

As for the number of pics on a card. I can fit about 35 on the 64 MB card.

 

[jgates]

I love digital also and I was dedicated 35mm fan before.

I would suggest the following though -

If you have the ability once you have loaded your items on your PC - immediately burn a CD copy. My daughters best friend just lost every one of her photos when her PC crashed. She came over to load her most recent photos to ours for now & DD burned her a CD at the same time so there is no risk of losing these. Store in another location, just as you would your negatives.

When you are downloading your photos, make sure the PC card does not clear as you download. There was someone on disboards who lost all their photos from one memory card a year or two ago because they allowed it to clear as it downlaoded - PC froze - bye bye photos. You can always delete or reformat the card once you know the photos are safely on PC AND a CD.

My Sony Mavica CD I shoot all at 5MP - when I open in my photo program they are about 26 x 34!!! Yikes - I have to size down, but I want the best quality I can. I usually get 75 photos on one of those little CD roms. The bad part? In order to print at WM or anywhere I need to reburn to a large CD as their machines will not accept the mini-CD's. When I get DSL in a couple of months I will upload a bunch and get them all printed. I hate standing at the store to do it.

 

[lindsey]

I have an Olympus Stylus 400 and love it! It's nice to take as may pics as you want and only print selected ones. I have used Sony's web site and Kodak's web site to upload pics to print. Last year I know I took over 200 pics. I always download pics to cd and computer. I usually also make a backup cd, just in case. This was a good thing because my computer crashed a few weeks ago, but fortunately I did not lose any pics.

 

[Mad4Dizne]

You are all great sources of cost saving information!!!! Just what I needed to know!!!!

Thanks again!!!!
Flo

 

[mickeyluv'r]

Printing your own digital photos is actually a lot more expensive than getting professionally-finished film photos.

What?!?!? I think this needs clarification. Printing from my printer at home is more expensive than ordering digital prints online (I don't know the exact cost of printing from home, but I think it is around $.45 a shot. (I can order great prints online for about $.19, plus i can often get a coupon beyond that price). This is way cheaper than traditional photo finishing. Plus, I only order the prints I want. I don't have to pay to have the whole roll developed and printed. This saves us a ton of money on pics over traditional developing!!!!! It is sort of comparing apples to oranges..maybe ordering extra prints is cheaper, but only when you neglect to factor in the rest of the costs.

Also, the quality of the ones we print are MUCH better, because you can take a lot more shots with digital. Say when you're trying to get a group shot, or an action shot. You can take three shots, and if you want to conserve memory, you can even preview and delete the bad ones on the spot. That doesn't happen with traditional film.
With traditional film, I always dreaded the developing bill, so sometimes lost rolls of film that were never developed. NowI download the digital ones, and print them when I want. (Though you do have to back up your hard drive periodically)

up until about a month ago, we loved our Kodak digital camera! It even takes short movies! Having two memory cards is always a good idea. So is using multiple sets of rechargable batteries.

The only problem we discovered with our Kodak camera is that when something goes wrong on the camera, you have to ship it to a repair center...I don't like that. Too bad Kodak operates that way.

 

[bicker]

Printing your own digital photos is actually a lot more expensive than getting professionally-finished film photos.

What?!?!? I think this needs clarification. Printing from my printer at home is more expensive than ordering digital prints online

Yup, and even more expensive than getting professionally-finished film photos. That was what I was saying.