There are several old posts on this — search the past year — and you’ve really already thought about the basics. If you take lots of pictures and print them all, then I think film is cheaper. You can buy a 24 exposure roll of film for about $2.50 (in 4 roll packs) and develop it for $5.00 — that works out to about $.30 a picture. A digital picture will cost about that much to print, plus you may have the cost of burning a CD or other hassles to store pictures if you want to reuse your memory card. Your initial investment is higher with digital as the camera costs more and you have to buy a fair amount of memory. Plus, recharging can be a hassle in a hostel.

However, if you aren’t going to print many of your pictures then digital is a better deal. Once you’ve made your initial investment in camera and memory, a picture that you e-mail to a friend or store on your computer is basically free if you never print it. You can delete duplicates and bad shots as you go.

I use both. I’m just back from 2 weeks in Hawaii. 9 rolls of film and about 200 digital shots.

I was down on digital until I got one. Now (for travel at least) I’m not going back. DIGITAL

So far, my plan is just to bring several disposable cameras with me, and then I will just mail them back to my parents as I go (so I don’t have to carry them).
We don’t own anything but a very big, expensive camera, which I really don’t want to lug around. Plus these disposables are really easy, and take decent pictures (of course, nicer cameras take nicer pictures, but I’m not really much of a photographer.

Any disadvantages to disposable cameras on your mind?
And also while I’m here… do I have to be worried about them going through the x-rays if they are on my carry-on?

And how many rolls of film or cameras would you reccommend for a 7 week trip? And I love having lots of pictures.

Tertia, I would consider maybe buying a cheap camera instead of going the disposable route. Disposables DO take nice pictures, for what you’re paying, but they’re more expensive than film and you would save a ton of room if you just hung onto the film instead of mailing home disposbale cameras. that would probably amount to a lot of $$ in the end… plus I don’t know about you but I would be paranoid that the pics wouldn’t end up getting home. Especially since you’ve mentioned how many pictures you like to take.

The most often mentioned problem is how to clear out memory by downloading pics to another media, since most people find they take many more pics with a digital than a non-digital camera. The alternatives – bigger and more memory cards, a portable hard drive made for digital pics=more money, and downloading to a CD at a net cafe has its risks since all net cafes dont allow this. Still, if i look around many US backackers are toting digital cameras around these days, so it must be OK.

I love them. They get better each month with the new models. Startup and processing times have been reduced dramatically in the last two years and many are going to storage systems that allow you up to 4 gigs of storage in a memory card (compact flash type 1 is pretty typical). If you can get a camera 3.1-3.2 mp camera (like a Canon A-70) that holds a CF Type 1 memory card, then buy a Kingston 512 mb card for $90 and it will hold between 250 (super fine 248×1536) to 800 (fine 1600×1200) shots, and this is the high quality range! The latter setting prints out good average size glossies.

The other high quality alternative is to go to used camera shop and get a MINOX point and shoot from the mid-late 1990s. This was the king of point and shoots (cost around $350 new in those days) and is still is hard to match. I have never had a bad pic in average tourist conditions.

Digital is the ONLY way to go in my opinion. One thing I would caution anyone on is the idea of deleting images as you go. Making an extended trip with limited memory will only bite you in the end. You will invariably end up taking too many nice pictures and end up riffling through "keepers" trying to find a scrap photo to delete while an amazing photo op is passing you by.

Furthermore, be skeptical of large memory cards. Large cards are nice in theory, but you will be hard pressed to find even the most high end pros that use cards over 1 gig (mind you the latest are up to 8GB). The reason is that memory cards can fail for a variety of different reasons. "Do not put all your eggs in one basket" fits very well in this situation. Beyond that, some of the larger cards are tiny versions of a hard drive. This means that they have slow start up times while the micro-drive spins up. A good practice is to use a portable hard drive device to augment flash cards. While a portable drive can also fail, it is more forgiving for most travelers.

My personal choice is the following:

1. Travel with 4 512mb memory cards. This will allow me to take around 300 images without having to transfer images to an external device. This will also divide my "hot" image storage in the case of a single device failure.
2. I plan to bring along a[url=‘http://shop.store.yahoo.com/insidecomputer/tripper.html’]Tripper 2.0[/url] to use as a more reliable image haven than memory cards. I have used the Tripper many times and it has proven to be very reliable. It also comes supporting 220 volts which makes it nice for traveling.

I also believe that digital comes out much cheaper in the area of printing. The cost per print comparisons posed earlier, while valid, are not all that relevant when comparing film to digital. Film forces a photographer to develop every image to see the outcome. This ensures that bad images will be developed at the cost of the user. To the contrary, digital offers the user the ability to first sort through images before printing only the best of the bunch. Beyond that, print price can come way down if a semi-high quality ink-jet printer is available for use. This can allow a person to print several photos on a common sheet of 8.5" x 11" photo paper. Placed in a binder with a protective clear plastic sheet, the photos appear comparable to film prints in quality while blowing them away in overall cost.

If you do choose to use film, KEEP you negatives. You never know when you may take your prize winning Europe photo album to show friends at a party where it may be somehow destroyed or lost. As a final bid for digital, it also offers the ability to have numerous copies of identical images that can be easily reprinted.

I certainly don’t think that digital is the "only way to go." I’m very happy with my digital photos — look great on the camera, look great on the computer and look great when printed. I would have said that they were comparable to film in quality if I didn’t have film pictures taken at the same time for comparison. When you put them side by side with the film prints of the same scenes, the films prints are noticably sharper in most lighting situations.

The debate between digital and film doesn’t seem to have an end in sight. While it is difficult to say one is flat out better than the other in all situations, it is possible to choose one over the other given a set of shooting conditions. For example, wedding photographers often use medium format film cameras as they work very well for the given lighting conditions and offer excellent image output. The problem here is that the cameras are large, slow, and expensive. However, such things are not a problem for wedding photography.

On the other hand, take nearly every magazine, newspaper, or TV station into account and you will almost always find high end digital Canon’s or Nikons doing the work. Speed is the important thing in these ares, which is why digital is primarily used in these instances, but keep in mind that Sports Illustrated surly wouldn’t use poor quality cameras (SI shoots exclusively digital).

But we are here for one reason, traveling. A person has to ask him/herself what is important when taking images while traveling. Digital offers the possibility to store a significantly larger number of images in the same space and weight film would need. That alone seems reason enough to pack digital. But then consider image noise, ease of ISO switching in digital, and better shadow detail in digital; I feel still feel digital is the only way to go in all but the most demanding situations.

However, OL commented on quality. It is important to note that image quality has more to do with camera quality than medium used. Equivalent digital cameras are often several times as expensive as their film counterparts, so only high end digital cameras should be considered if a true film to digital comparison is to be done. But, all in all, film is probably the best choice for most people who do not already or do not wish to invest in digital equipment. As I said before, digital is my choice as I have the equipment needed to rival most 35mm film cameras. Everyone may not be in a situation and such people should not take my opinion to heart.

I’m not a pro or anything. But, am taking digital and have learned to download my pics to my iPod via a Belkin card reader ($99 at Apple stores). It does pose a problem with toting all this around (camera & charger, iPod & charger, Belkin) but for my extended trip, it makes the most sense. Then, no hassels with trying to save pics on a disc and spending alot for memory cards. This reader automatically downloads pics right from the camera then to the iPod. If anyone else has learned other tricks, let us know. Thanks!

Nice! I didn’t know a iPod was capable of grabbing pics using a reader. So you have music and images… not a bad deal at all.

Why I love digital: I took 40 pics at a friends wedding this past weekend. I spent around 30 minutes touching up the images and putting them online. I just sent the link to all of our friends from all over the world. Let’s see film beat that .

I have both and for the most part, I do prefer my digital.

35mm: For action shots, digital is simply not as fast as a 35mm camera. Digital pics can come out blurry if your subject is moving. Also, my 35mm has a panorama mode (it’s not an APS camera). I don’t think any digitals have this option.

Digital: For me, I think it’s easier to carry enough memory cards than to worry about downloading anything. Memory cards are smaller to carry than cd’s. I might consider the ipod option at some point, but until then, my 3 256mb cards are plenty. I can take 250 pics per card at my highest resolution (4 megapixels). If I reduce my resolution (2 megapixels, still great for email or web), it’s upwards of 700 pictures per card. The charger is lightweight (I have a Kodak camera with the slim charging dock).

Furthermore, printing and editing is much cheaper and easier than film. If you all haven’t already looked into Costco for your developing, you should run, not walk to your nearest one (perhaps Sam’s Club has similar services?) 4×6 prints are .14 each. If there is a better price around, I’d like to hear it. 8×12 prints are $1.99. Did I mention this is one hour developing?

While you’re at Costco, check out their memory cards. My 256mb cards
(SD format) were $64.99 each. No rebates, no waiting for sales – that’s their regular price. The other formats are even cheaper.

I second the comment above about disposable cameras. Inexpensive 35mm’s abound these days. You’re better off buying one and just spending for film (which comes pretty cheap nowadays as well), instead of dropping $7-10 on a disposable. Plus, your only feature on a disposable is a flash. Even cheap cameras have zoom, timers, etc.

Big debate. Personally I’m a 35mm fan all the way.

Not only do I like taking tons of pictures with just point-and-shoot (no fussing with buttons and features), but I also like to develop and print nearly all of them.

AND… the big advantage of regular film is that you get the suspense of waiting to see how the pictures come out, and reliving your trip all over again months later when you go home and get them developed. Somehow I think it ruins that suspense when you get to see the pictures instantly and flip through them the same day. Also you may end up deleting ones you wish you’d kept.

No memory problems or media transfer problems with film either. And you can buy more film anywhere if you run out (though it’s much cheaper to buy it in advance).

I’d suggest taking your film carry-on instead of checking it on the plane. The carry-on luggage goes through a lower x-ray dose, which is less harmful to the film.

If you are taking a lot of rolls of film, I suggest numbering each roll (not the film box but the film itself) with a permanent marker. That way you’ll know what order they go in later, and it’s easier to keep track.

quote:
My personal choice is the following:

1. Travel with 4 512mb memory cards. This will allow me to take around 300 images without having to transfer images to an external device. This will also divide my "hot" image storage in the case of a single device failure.

What kind of resolution do you use to get only 300 pics on 2 GB of storage. I travel with 2 128MB cards and can get about 800 pics. Always a good idea to travel with multiple cards though…

I personally prefer the digital to APS or 35mm but only if you can get a decent digicam. Most entry models will cause you problems in low light situations.

What resolution did you all find is the best to take pictures? I have a 5 megapixel camera and shoot in VGA (640 × 480) for ease of sending pictures over email. I have the option to resize the image and thought I would do this if I loved a picture where I would want to have large prints made, but maybe you all think its best to just shoot in the higher resolution. Any opinions? At what megapixel do you like to shoot in?

quote:
What kind of resolution do you use to get only 300 pics on 2 GB of storage.

I use a Canon 10D in RAW mode which outputs images at 3072 × 2048 pixels that are around 7mb a piece. JPG files would be a third of the size but the uncompressed RAW format is amazing when it comes to post processing. RAW has allowed me to save many images that I messed up while shooting.

quote:
What resolution did you all find is the best to take pictures?

I like to shoot in the largest and most detailed mode available. This allows the camera to be used to its full capacity. There is no point (in my opinion) to have a 4 megapixel camera and only take 2 megapixel images with it. The drawback of course comes in the form of money spent on memory cards to accommodate the larger images, but larger and more detailed images will allow larger and better looking prints to be made.

Hi,

I know it was mentioned about film with regards to X-rays. I was wondering if X-rays will affect digital camera’s themselves? My father just got back from the USA and the X-rays in the airport fried his personal organizer thing (just those simple ones that you can keep contacts, etc.) So I guess that just raised some concerns for me.

Has anyone had any problem with their digital cameras?

Thanks,
Rach

Rach, I’ve read test after test showing that x-rays have no effect on digital. A couple photography magazines I subscribe to have gone as far as to take images, pass them through rays (while on digital memory) several times and then examine the images bit by bit to detect alterations. They found none. I have personally had digital camera equipment passed through x-ray machines several times with no problems.

The incident with your dad and his PDA is unfortunate, but it is a coincidence and was surly caused by something else. X-rays will not effect electronics. Millions of travelers take laptops on airlines each year with none of which being damaged by the rays of x-ray machines.

quote:
Big debate. Personally I’m a 35mm fan all the way.

Not only do I like taking tons of pictures with just point-and-shoot (no fussing with buttons and features), but I also like to develop and print nearly all of them.

AND… the big advantage of regular film is that you get the suspense of waiting to see how the pictures come out, and reliving your trip all over again months later when you go home and get them developed. Somehow I think it ruins that suspense when you get to see the pictures instantly and flip through them the same day. Also you may end up deleting ones you wish you’d kept.

No memory problems or media transfer problems with film either. And you can buy more film anywhere if you run out (though it’s much cheaper to buy it in advance).

In interest of full and honest disclosure, I feel the need to confess that, having had my 35mm camera stolen on a recent trip to Costa Rica, I just became a digital camera owner for the first time.

Yep, I’ve given up the suspense of waiting to see how pictures turn out in favour of the convenience of being able to see right away how they turned out. I haven’t really sacrificed point-and-shoot; my new camera takes awesome pictures in Auto mode. And it runs on AA batteries, so though rechargeables last longer, I should be ok to travel in terms of batteries.

I’ll have to wait and see how it works for me the next time I go on a trip. But I’m no longer a film camera holdout; I’ve crossed over to the digital dark side.

Thanks for the feedback, schef! That gives me some reassurance that my digi will be ok

Thanks,
Rach

No problem Rach.