\"El Paisano\ wrote:
> Be fair with the analogies. What is the ***same-priced*** alternative
> that is vastly superior to my point-and-shoot. Matthew
There are hundreds of examples. (I thought I'd find an example in the
same budget range as I paid for a Landrider, and I'll stay away from
used items for the time being). B&H Photo is currently featuring a Nikon
35mm camera $350 with a $50 rebate. $400 without the rebate. It has a
28-80mm lens and you'll see that it has a nice piece of glass on the
front which should collect plenty of light for your images. It shoots on
35mm film which can easily net you 28 megapixel images. There are
WalMarts and Walgreens all over the nation that will give you one-hour
processing and convert your film to digital if that's a need.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=getItemDetai-
l&Q=&sku=199520&is=USA&si=spec#goto_itemInfo
Without going to Circuit City or Costco, on the same site I find a
digital point and shoot. In fact, to be as fair in the comparison as
possible I took the first Nikon on the list for the same $400: a Nikon
Coolpix 3700, 3.2 Megapixel, 3x Optical/4x Digital Zoom, Point-and-
shoot, Digital Camera. This has a 5.4-16.2mm (35-105mm equivalent )
lens. What that means is that the diagonal dimension of the acquisition
chip (replacing the film) is about 7.5 mm or about 1/3 of an inch as
opposed to the 1.8 inches diameter of a frame of 35mm film. And it comes
with a wimpy 16MB digital card which will only hold about 2 of the 3.2
megapixel images, so you'll have to spend another $50 minimum to get a
bigger digital card.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=getItemDetai-
l&Q=&sku=304026&is=REG&si=spec#goto_itemInfo
Now, lest you try to pin some other motive on me, because you've not
read the entire thread. My point is that I'm not going to be critical of
you for your choice of auto point-and-shoot camera as long as it gets
you out there capturing some photos. And if you asked me what I thought
about your purchasing the second Nikon, I'd probably conclude, just
because you're asking that it may be the best camera for you (unless I
know of another similar one for about the same price that could do
something else you want to do with it. But, the photos you get with the
second Nikon will not be publishable at anywhere near the sizes or
resolutions of what I could shoot with the first Nikon. There are good
reasons for wanting an automatic digital camera (size, speed of getting
images into your computer and up on the web or attached to an email (tho
I've known plenty of folks who've never figured out the part of the
process that gets the image out of the camera). But if I was going to
limit myself to the same $400 expenditure, I'd choose the first Nikon in
a heartbeat because of the added capability, and because I can't
understand what all the fuss is about setting the exposure and focus
manually is all about. I know you'll be able to dream up all kinds of
holes to poke in my analogy, but I think it's fairer than you'd like to
admit. I have only one gripe that I feel I've been consistent in
maintaining and that is that there is a knee-jerk negative reaction to a
bike that most of you have never seen or riden.
--