I cuurently have a Minolta 3 XI 35mm camera. I was looking at the optical zoom feature of digital cameras. What does my present 35 - 80 lens convert to say a 2x or 5x optical ? Also if anyone is familiar with this camera is there a digital equivalent. I have it and a scanner and am tired of the scanner, and the $13 per roll of film developed if I am lucky. Lets see $700 / $13 = 53 rolls of film. Then there is my time scanning pictures in. BAHHH Anyone have a good digital camera for sale ?

-- Chris Burt (christopher@mercury.ll.net), February 10, 2000

Answers

The digital equivalent of a 35mm camera is around 6mega pixels and one of those cameras will set you back about 25grand. If you don't plan to print your pictures, or are satisified with a print size of about 4x6 then you can get near photo quality from a CoolPix 950 or other Megapixel camera. Cameras like this will can be had for less than $1000, but you will notice the lesser quality of the pictures as compared to your 35mm pictures.

-- David Erskine (davide@netquest.com), February 10, 2000.

This is not entirely true. We use the Olympus 2020 digital camera and have had 8x10" prints done at EzPrints.com onto silver-halide Kodak photo paper that were incredible. They had better color accuracy than equivalent 8x10's from our Minolta 35mm camera developed at Wolf. The Olympus is only a 2 megapixel camera with 1600x1200 pixels. It has a 3x optical zoom, which simply means it zooms to 3 times the magnification of its widest focal length, 35-105mm equivalent in our case. Your 35-80mm current lens would be considered a little more than 2x. You'll find yourself taking a LOT more pictures with digital as it is free, (after the initial investment), and quick, (no developing or scanning).

-- Brad Grant (bradandsteph@home.com), February 11, 2000.

If you are satisfied with the current set-up photographically, then you can probably make the switch to digital. There is an initial cost: camera, reader, at least 2 memory cards, at least two sets of batteries, chargers, other bits and pieces to support the new sustem that can't be transferred like flashes, filters, etc. Memory costs can be substantial if you want to take lots of pictures at a crack or don't have easy access to a laptop or desktop to download to.

Look at the whole picture when totalling costs up. You can also have scans made when the film is developed, it cuts out the effort portion of doing it yourself for a moderate cost.

If you feel constrained by the lens you have now, like not wide angle enough or not long enough telephoto, then digital is probably not going to make you that much happier photgraphically as few digitals go much wider than what you have and they don't get you all that much more in telephoto although you would find (roughly) 35mm-105mm optical equivalents common. (50mm is the lens that gives you the same visual perspective as looking at something. 35mm is a moderate wide angle, a fairly common wide angle and quite close to the usual lens in most single focal length (nonzoom) cameras. 28mm is enough wider to be useful and is the usual next available increment wider from 35mm, a few digitals go this wide. Multiples of 50 (or the digital equivalent in a given camera) give you telephoto magnification: 100mm = 2x, 200mm = 4x, etc.) Lens capability is easily addressed in film cameras (get another suitable lens) but isn't nearly so easily addressed in digitals. "Digital" zoom is just cropping the picture and then blowing it up. Not usually a solution

-- Craig Gillette (cgillette@thegrid.net), February 13, 2000.