Regarding digital cameras, I just came back from a trip to Europe.  I took my
HP-315 digital camera with me along with my trusty old Minolta 35mm...  I ran
up exactly 100 photos on the HP-315 and did three rolls of film with the
Minolta.

An important basic design issue with all digital cameras is how they
interface or connect to the rest of the world.  My HP-315, like many digital
cameras uses "Compact Flash" memory to store the photos.  This is the most
common (I think) type of portable memory used by digital cameras and other
devices.  Many of the camera manufacturers use other types of (more
proprietary) portable memory.  You will probably discover that all options
other than Compact Flash cost more for the memory and are less supported by
other devices.

Before I left, I bought a 256mb Compact Flash module for the camera.  This
cost me $139.  You can get 512mb modules as well but they cost approx $300.
I have no solid idea how many photos I can store on the 256mb module that I
have.  The 100 photos that I took might be using one third of the module???
The camera's display claims that I can take 240 MORE photos before I fill the
module up.  Note:  This is with the HIGHEST possible resolution on the camera
as well.  Amazing!  OT comment:  My camera now has more memory than my
(older) HP-3000!

The reason that I also took my Minolta along with me is that my HP-315, like
most digital cameras is very weak when it comes to issues like lenses.  I
have bought what add-on lenses exist for this camera but there is no way that
it can compete with my old Minolta and the set of lenses that I have for it.
Without spending a LOT OF MONEY, I don't know of a way to get higher
quality/more flexible lenses on a digital camera.  For any digital camera,
I'd look at what add-on lenses (if any!) are available.  There seems to be
next to no standards and few options in this area.

Here's a question for everybody:  While all Compact Flash modules adher to a
standard (actually there are two versions - Compact Flash I and II - I think
that this corresponds to PCMCIA Type I and II cards but I am not sure), what
about the method(s) of storing data on these memory modules?  Could I take
the CF module out of my HP-315 and put it into another brand of camera and
have that camera read the module and recognize my photos?  I don't know if
the 'format'ing of the module is a standard in the industry or not.  I'm
thinking of never deleting any photos from the Compact Flash module and just
buying more Compact Flash whenever I need it.  The cost per photo might be as
low as $0.41 given what I know now - $139 for 256mb and 340 photos / 256mb.

The newest set of cameras are capable of much higher resolution (4.x
megapixel) than slightly older cameras such as my 315 (2.1mp).  I am happy
with the quality of the photos that my 315 takes but given the lack of
lenses, I cannot take lon distance photos with it.  This is due to the lack
of telephoto lenses not the resolution of the camera.

Right now I am looking at some of HP's brand new photo printers.  They have
one that prints 4x6 size photos direct from Compact Flash (and another
semi-standard type of memory).  I suspect that it's not yet possible to get a
printer that will support the resolution that the latest cameras work with.
Thus printed photos must come out at a lower resolution anyway.

Anybody want a sample photo?  I had a lot of fun using the digital camera.
It's an interesting change to be able to see what you just took on the little
built-in display and then be able to delete photos that you don't want.
Also, unless I print out a photo, the cost of taking each additional photo is
ZERO.  Now if I can figure out cheaper ways of printing photos, I will have
the total cost of digital photos well below the cost of developing and
printing 35mm film photos.  Anyone have any thoughts on low cost photo paper
for HP's latest type of photo printers???

Wayne Boyer

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *