If you don’t have a digital camera yet, and you’re planning to go digital, look into models that come with rechargeable batteries, yet allow you to use regular AA batteries. That way, if you don’t get to charge it for a day or two, you can always get and use regular AA batteries until you get the opportunity to charge it. Just about every manufacturer makes a model with this feature.

However, do realize that digital cameras wear out alkaline batteries really fast – due to the load and the chemical composition of these batteries. They’ll work, but will drain faster than say NiMH batteries.

If you already have a camera, you could maybe:
1. Get additional batteries – enough to last you till u get the chance to charge 2-3 batteries a night (nowadays, they only take about 3 hours to charge).
2. eBay your current camera, and get one that can run on AAs.

I’m having a similar debate now.

I’ve been a film user for ages and I’m considering going digital. But with AAs having very poor battery life, and rechargeables being a pain in the neck while travelling, is it really worth it?

Not to mention the inconvenience of having to find internet cafes regularly to burn photos on CD and make extra copies in case of problems, etc. I’m accustomed to just tossing used rolls of film in my backpack and not worrying about them till I get home.

Everyone’s telling me to go digital… but I’m having trouble understanding why. Sure, it’d be nice to be able to see shots right away and retake them if they don’t come out. And there’s the "coolness" aspect to it.

But it seems like for the money, I’d be getting a camera with less resolution than film, less zoom, that’s bulkier, has shorter battery life, and requires finding internet cafes to burn CDs which take up more pack space than used rolls of film.

What, exactly, is supposed to be the advantage here?

Check out the different types of battery chargers. I got one that’s very light and recharges batteries in 15 minutes. Got it at Walmart – I want to say it’s a ray-o-vac, but I’m not sure.

Having travelled with a digital, if you have a good quality and reasonably compact analog camera, take it.

Take some film and if you’re on a very long trip, mail your ‘full’ film home.

You can always have them scanned along with development when you get home.

I guess there really is no right answer to this questions … you have to decide which advantages and disadvantages with each format you can live with.

I plan to take a LOT of photos, most of which I will not spend the money to develop or print on paper. Therefore, the significant cost savings in developing prints outweight the trouble of charging batteries & the cost for digital storage.

Figure out how many photos you’re gonna take, and then figure the cost, and see if you’re willing to go through the trouble for the savings … that’s what it all boils down to isn’t it? Don’t forget the obvious advantages of digital – the opportunity to keep taking a shot until you get it just right —> now that’s priceless for me.

And on another subject, when you develop film, and order them in CD format as well, how do they turn out? Are they as good as the ones taken with a digital camera when viewed on the computer?

Avusblue, I get them scanned at Costco, so the quality isn’t stunning, but it’s more than adequate for viewing on a screen. They come back at fairly high resolution. A few times there’s minor dust or colour issues with the scanning, but for the most part they are large and easily cropped, and they’re more than adequate for posting on my website or e-mailing. For reference, check out my[url=‘http://www.geocities.com/segacs2/costarica/’]Costa Rica photos[/url], though Yahoo Photos shrinks them down quite a bit when you upload them there.

Despite all that, I’ll probably wind up moving to digital anyway. The temptation of being able to instantly see my shots and retake the ones that don’t come out is just too good to pass up. But I may pick up a film camera as well (even the decent ones are very cheap now), just to have around when digital isn’t the best option.

Just a quick note for reference:

When you take photos with digital cameras and plan to have them printed at eg. Costco, Walmart, etc. … make sure there’s nothing important on the top and bottom of your shot.

A native ratio digital photo will print at a 4.5"x6". So when its printed as a 4×6, the top and bottom 0.25" are cropped. Newer cameras for eg. the Sony P-100/150/200 gives you the option to capture shots at the 4×6 H:W ratio … thereby you get what u see.

Heh, thanks for the tip