Digital camera for rocket photography???

The solution is obvious, wait 10 years. In the mean time I have an obsolete (or soon to be) Elan IIe coupled with a 75-300MM Image Stabilizing zoom. It is paid for. It works. I feel so 90's.

Can any one still use a 10 year old digital camera? I mean is the software that came with one that far back still usable on something like XP? For that matter can one get parts and repair service for a 10 year old digital camera? I have no doubt that I can still get repair service for my 35 year old SLR. I can walk into a camera shop today and buy a new zoom lense that will fit it.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

But would you want to? My daughter enrolled in High School Photo Journalism last year. My first reaction was to give her my old Olympus OM-10, a GREAT SLR for a budding photographer. It hasn't been used in almost 10-12 years and the mirror sometimes hangs so I brought it into a shop for repair. I don't remember the exact quote, but is was around $150 for a complete overhaul. We spent a little more (just a little) and got her a brand new Canon Rebel that accepts the same lenses my Elan does. Now that's she's on Yearbook staff that really paid off since she can borrow my 75-300MM zoom or my 28-135mm tele (slightly better than the lens on her camera). If she had stuck with the OM-10 all she would have had was a 50mm fixed (arguably better glass).

Granted the OM-10 was never a great camera. Perhaps if I had an OM-1 I would have spent the money to fix it. Even so, comparing my Elan IIe (with eye controlled focus!) to my OM is like comparing my Honda Pilot to my first Honda, a Civic 1200.

not if they change the film.

in this case your comparison is still flawed.

digital technology is fundimentally changing. so you can not migrate the old to the new etc..

you CAN move the film. I have used the same CF cards in my last 4 Digital Camera's

if they change the film itself (such as APS or going to 120 film etc..) you then DO need to change hardware.

the only reason you do not change hardware is because 35mm is "good enough" and therfore there is no logical reason to change it (as can be seen by teh failure of APS)

digital however has NOT matured. it has NOT reached the overall status of "good enough" so they keep changing it as the technology evolved.

you are comparing an immature technology with a VERY VERY mature technology.

I am comparing a mature technology with the idea of what will BE a mature technology in a few years (its almost there now with sub $1,000.00 8mp cameras)

comparing digital to film is almost like comparing apples to oranges. with that in mind you have to compare them properly or any data you get is meaningless.

and your characteristics are fine. if your willing to PAY for it (cost of film and developing)

the nice thing about digital is that once you have the hardware taking pictures costs for all intents and purposes absolutely NOTHING.

the Memory Cards are reusable. the batteries are rechargeable. the external storage to archive the pictures is SO low per picture (and I include it in the initial hardware purchase)

do the math. a 120gig hard drive is about $80 an enclosure is about $30

do the math on how many pictures that drive can hold !! its phenominal. its more pictures than many of you have taken in your entire lifetimes !!

also archive to CD or DVD. do the math. 20cents a pop for CD's 85 cents a pop for DVD.

you can take and look at your pictures for NOTHING once you have the base hardware.

yes it costs to print (less than film prints in most cases) but you do not HAVE to print and you only need to print what you want. you think I printed all 900 pictures I took at naram last year ?

with film I would HAVE to have printed all of them.

what would that have cost ? lets use CHEAP film NASTY cheap film. $3 a roll. $2 if I get it onsale cheap. 24 images per roll.

developing.$6 $7 for double prints if I get lucky and they have a sale at walmart. so lets use $10 per roll of film for film and develope (plus or minus a $1)

in "rolls of 24" I took about 37.5 rolls of film last year (actually its closer to 100 images but lets use 900 for now)

at $10 a set do the math.

$375 in film and developing. and that does not include the work of getting these scanned into the computer for my uses OR the added cost of having the developer burn them to CD for me etc.. (not sure how much that is)

at TODAY'S pricing that is about what the camera will cost you. ($350-$375 for a coolpix 5000)

Our family went to murtle beach in august of that year as well. I took almost 1500 pictures. so another $625

the 2 trips combined that is coincidentally $1000.00 or enough to buy a Canon Digital Rebel. a 120gig hard drive and a 256meg memory card. (ok a wee more once you add tax or shipping)

so if I had purchased a Digital rebel on July 20th it would have completely paid for itself by the end of august of last year.

if your money tight but can afford a slight large outlay at teh beginning Digital is King.

the only downside is resale value. they have none :-) (well compared to what they cost new) but if the camera you get is "good enough" then it will remain good enough for the rest of its life in your hands.

Chris Taylor

and if you want to UPGRADE in film say goto 120 film. you will have to change equipment.

what are you replying to ? clearly not the out of context quote you took from me.

I will await what the point of your reply was (btw I still have and use a kodak disc camera I have 2 peices of film left for it :-)

I collect camera's

Chris Taylor

Actually yes. although I hope this fetish out society has with "disposable" is gone by then.

once we have 20mp digital technology will "level out" since that will be MORE than good enough for almost ANY consumers usage.

although it MIGHT continue onwards. sice higher resolution can replace otherwise very expensive zoom lens.

probably less than 10 years too. that was a VERY conservative estimate seeing as how they have 11, 14 and 16mp resolutions today.

Chris Taylor

and what makes it obsolete ?

it will take as good a picture as any brand new 35mm out today.

oh you meant your wants and needs have g> > Cool! So in ten years we will all have good cheap disposable 20MP

that is ONLY because the technology has "matured" and been HEAVILY "standardized" digital is NOT mature yet and has not been standardized.

show me a film camera from before things were standardized and mature and please by all means try to legitimately make the same claim.

I have many film camers that should they break I am screwed as finding parts would be near impossible.

you can not have a 10 year old digicam since I do not think any of the more common models can BE ten years old yet. if we use the LCD as the guys (IE count units with a color lcd) the oldest one possible is the Casio QV-10 (I have this unit BTW and it still works fine)

it is not ten years old yet (7 or 8 tops) I will let you know in 3 years if it still works. parts ? $10-$20 on ebay.

Out of context?? Did you NOT write this? Here is -YOUR- exact text:

"that is the biggest farce in existance.

Cameras NEVER become more obsolete than when they are created."

Your whole argument below that was based on the camera still being 'usable'. Film is no longer available for disc camera. Film is necessary for the camera to be usable, therefore it is more obsolete than when it was created. Cameras DO become more obsolete than when they are created. Really, you weren't able to get that?

Joel. phx

a.. No longer in use: an obsolete word. a.. Outmoded in design, style, or construction

the word obsolete is HEAVILY abused.

ANY digicam can "still" be used today. there is no digital camera in existance that can not still be used if it still functions.

#2 is the critical part I think.

Design regarding resolution. since the resolution was not ideal to begin with IE comparable to 35mm it was obsoletely from the beginning.

is THAT getting through to you yet ?

Chris Taylor

"[adj] old; no longer in use or valid or fashionable; "obsolete words"; "an obsolete locomotive"; "outdated equipment"; "superannuated laws"; "out-of-date ideas" "

Just because you do not like the definition of a word that does not make it's use incorrect.

Joel. phx

Once we have cars that can easily go the speed limit...

Once we have computers with 60 gig hard drives...

Once we have cell phones that stay active for xx hours...

Once we have an airplane that will...

Chris, Technology will ALWAYS raise the benchmark of what a "normal" consumer "needs".

steve

I like the definition just fine.

I have a Fun 320 polaroid camera. I use it quite often. it is not outdated in fact it the only peice of equipment that can even do the job assigned to it.

so it is obsolete ? and if so HOW ? its currently in use. its still valid. Fashionable does not apply to integrated circuits last time I checked. its not outdated since its the ONLY unit that does its required job. and superannuated laws does not apply to the best of my knowledge and the idea is certaintly not out of date.

it does not meet a single point if your or my definiton.

so again is it obsolete and if you say yes justify it with a definition that fits it since it does not meet the one you supplied.

how so.

we have film technology FAR IN ADVANCE of 35mm

yet its not obsolete according to you.

explain that

According to default :

"One these computers is capable of meeting the complete computational needs of the USA" (some obscure US govt official in the early 60's, regarding one of the very early IBM 360 mainframes).

Nowadays, you have more compute power in your wristwatch.

[And I used to think that a 5 _megabyte_ drive was _huge_...]

I know a guy that makes wall clocks out of them.

I used to do that. Normally with platters that had a head crash.

Mario Perdue NAR #22012 Sr. L2 for email drop the planet

"X-ray-Delta-One, this is Mission Control, two-one-five-six, transmission concluded."

Right after you do it with your precious Nikon...

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!