Filmscanners mailing list archive (firstname.lastname@example.org)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan & Dimage 7 camera
I note that Sony has a new Digital camera which uses a nice little 3"
CD-RW disk capable of storing about 150 megs of info, and of course, it
is re-writable. The disks are about $5 each here (worth about $1.50, but
that's supply and demand, I guess) Still a LOT cheaper than flash
memory. The camera in Canada is about $1400 right now, that should be
well under $1000 US street, and saves the need for the extra interface
with the computer, and having to download to write to a CD-RW/R anyway.
Of course, since CD-RW is reusable many times, to save money you could
write the stuff down to a standard CD-R/RW and reuse the disks. Also,
the cost of packing a dozen of these 3" babies is under $60 CAN, and
takes up very little space and weight.
I used to wonder about Sony when they came out with the floppy disk
version of this concept, but now they are getting somewhere. Of course,
I imagine that flash memory is a lot more reliable (having no moving
parts) than a CD-RW drive in the camera, and also RAM is smaller and
must weight a lot less. But one big advantage is at $5 a pop (or less)
you also don't really need to bring a laptop with you and can wait to
download the images when you get home.
Is there enough room under that kitchen table for two? ;-)
Steve Greenbank wrote:
> A Casio QV3500 + 340 MB microdrive (250 high res jpegs [and you can delete
> the bad ones to make way for more]) can be had for less than the price of a
> 35mm camera with 28-70 zoom + half decent film scanner (Acer 2740).
> On screen or in smaller prints there is little between them except the huge
> depth of field on the digicam pictures. Yes there are still some quality
> problems with digicams but there are also some benefits no dust, no
> scratches, no grain, no fingerprints, no human processing f**k ups,
> immediate feedback, exposure latitude, slower shutter speeds can be hand
> held, macro pictures are much easier to take, decent results out of the box
> unlike the damn scanner.
> I have little doubt that 35mm film quality will soon be surpassed in MOST
> respects by prosumer digicams. Like with CD and vinyl some people will
> maintain that analogue is better for quite some time, but ultimately 99%
> will convert to digital.
> The original poster was talking about using one for web pictures - I'd say
> he'd be completely mad to use film.
> I'm just off to hide under the kitchen table ( as once advised by the UK
> government in the event of nuclear attack!!).