At 12:48 PM 1/4/99 -0800, you wrote:
>The reasoning about getting a larger memory card: With a current
>35mm camera, you shoot 24-36 pictures. Replace the film, and then
>shoot more. What happens when you run out of file (on a trip) ?
>Buy more film. Problem is, with a digital camera, you fill up the 8mb
>card (24 pictures), you can't just pop in more 'film' from the camera
>booth. The next thing that happens, you take pictures on only
>'good things', trying to make the most of your available pictures (24).
>With a larger picture capacity, shoot away. You will take a lot of
>pictures of things that normally you wouldn't waste film on. You will
>be surprised at what you find later when you download the pictures. I
>usually take 30 pictures a day driving to and from work. Most stuff is
>garbage, but occationally I will find a few gems.
>If I had the (DC260) camera for the CA. DML meeting in 2 weeks, I'd have
>a ton a pictures (200+) vs. the 48 that I'll get out of my current
>camera. So even for the amateur, it makes sense to get more storage
>capacity.
A friend of mine has a digital camera. I'm not sure what the brand is,
but it doesn't use a memory card, it uses floppy disks. I love that idea!
If I ever get a digital camera, it will have to use floppy disks. You
don't have to worry about stupid proprietary memory cards, "flash" this
and "ram" that, you just stick a floppy in and shoot. The best part
is that you can never run out of film! Floppy disks are dirt cheap
now (they're practically giving them away), and if you run out of "film"
while you're on vacation and thousands of miles away from your computer,
you don't have to stop taking pictures; just go to the nearest department
store and pick up some more floppies! The only drawback as I see it is
the floppy is rather slow, so it takes longer for the picture to be
written to disk (that could be solved by an intermediate memory that would
hold maybe 10 pictures), and you probably can't fit as many pics on a
floppy as you can a memory chip, but who cares? They're dirt cheap! :-)
A problem (with that particular camera) is that the quality isn't
as great as I'd like, but I suspect that'll change shortly. The pics of
my engine at:
http://www.cs.fredonia.edu/~stei0302/WWW/KNCLONE (whew! Dak content!) ;-)
were taken with that camera. As you can see, it has some problems with
bright shiny things. (The reflection off the air cleaner created "jaggies".)
Here are some more pics taken with that camera:
Me with my ultralight last winter:
http://www.rit.edu/~jam3198/photos/planes/steiger.jpg
Some closeups of a circuit on a protoboard: (this camera is GREAT for
closeups!)
http://www.rit.edu/~jam3198/photos/circuit1.jpg
http://www.rit.edu/~jam3198/photos/circuit2.jpg
http://www.rit.edu/~jam3198/photos/picchip.jpg
I'm going to get one someday, but I don't need it right now; I'm
waiting for the price to drop. Seems to me that these digital cameras
are poised to explode, and I'll get one when I can get something like the
current high end cameras for $300 or so...
-Jon-
.--- stei0302@cs.fredonia.edu ------------------------------------.
| Affiliations: DoD, EAA, MP Race Team, NMA, SPA, USUA. RP-SEL |
| '96 Dodge Dakota v8 SLT CC (14.58@93.55), '96 Kolb FireFly 447 |
`----------------------- http://www.cs.fredonia.edu/~stei0302/ ---'
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:11:53 EDT
