Please recommend to me

[Deja Q]

A digital point'n'shoot camera. (not a D-SLR.)

While I will still use film for telephoto work, a 6~8MP digital would save a ton of money in the long run, once the ROI is made up (I'll explain the details shortly.)

I've been eyeballing the Fuji Finepix F10, though I just got my hands on the E550; the4 main differences being the E550 allows for more control, but the F10 has much better battery life and can take great 800ISO and even usable 1600 ISO pics (though I haven't heard if the F10 does RAW or not).

My only major desire is a P&S that has a RAW or TIF mode. Saving in JPG format just introduces artifacting that makes larger size pictures rather pointless. (a 13x19" photo, that 6+ MP can do, would look bad having bits of artifacting showing up. RAW or TIF would negate this issue.

Minor desires would be having decent macro mode and able to focus in low-light conditions, not to mention doing nighttime open-shutter work for up to 6 seconds.

As for ROI, there is no cost savings until I match the price of the camera for the number of pictures I'd have to buy and then have developed. At an averaged 38 cents per exposure (in terms of buying the film and processing it; I typically use slide film or high grain Fuji portrait film), I'd have to take 1200 shots to make up the price. For digital, this is feasible within a one year time frame. (for a D-SLR, after lenses and other pieces, 4800 would be almost the amount I'ds have to take and that's not cost effective in the slightest. By the time I make up the cost, a new model will have come out anyway, and I'd rather buy as infrequently as possible.) Just a good quality camera now is what any customer wants.

Thx!

[Deja Q]

1. One teensy kick

I'm torn between the Fuji Finepix E550 and the Konica Minolta DiMAGE Z6. The latter has a better zoom, but existing reviews state the E550 pulls a better puch for the money (and the Minolta's zoom has severe problems in telephoto mode, which nearly had me summarily buying it yesterday!)

[gmoney]

2. Check this rating site...

Not familiar with the ones your considering, but Steve is...

http://www.steves-digicams.com/hardware_reviews.html

In your ROI, don't forget the value of your time, plus the value of NOT printing bad prints/processing bad slides. For instance, what's it worth to take pictures and be able to show images to a client on the spot, or e-mail images almost immediately, or drop a picture into a layout minutes after it's shot. And add the value of shooting a frame and immediately being able to see a histogram to help ensure your exposure's correct, plus see the image to tell if there's any bad shadows or other things you'd want to eliminate. I'd say if a digital camera saves you just ONE reshoot, it's almost paid for itself. Factor in a lot fewer trips to the lab for processing and prints, etc. buying film, etc.

Plus, if you shoot 36 frames in a portrait setting you end up with all that film, and you may only ever use/sell two or three frames. (Don't forget environmental factors -- photography uses a lot of nasty chemicals and consumes petroleum and paper, even for the stuff you throw away.) So, you're paying for EVERY frame you shoot with film, whereas with digital, you only pay for the GOOD ones.

Ever run out of film on a shoot? Ever lost a roll of film? Ever been paranoid that airport x-rays will wipe out an entire week's worth of shooting? Ever tried to get film processed in the middle of a national park or in some foreign land with polluted water?

It sounds like you're at least a semi-pro, and I'm guessing you have a film SLR. I would go ahead and get the digital SLR that can use your film SLR's lenses. You'll love it.

[Deja Q]

3. Hmmm... My film SLR is a Minolta...

But the Canon Digital Rebel XT sounds like the best of the bunch out there.

That, how bloody expensive they are (net cost, I'd be replacing the lenses too), and how it's easier to overexpose trick photography (e.g. the trite waterfall effect, et al)...

And how, by and large, film still has it goin' for shadow and color detail but I will admit digital is improving every year (but a pity they won't make a camera with a removable sensor as these things are rather costly on the whole, but then having the customer save money OR saving resources is something they'd dread... and plastic and most camera components use lots of petroleum too...)

Of course, digital does give a boost to telephoto shots (by a factor of 1.5 as I recall reading)...

Digital media isn't immune anymore thanks to ramped up screening 'technology'.

And lead casings for film will protect them. Will they work for digital modules? :-) (presumably)

Technically I am a semi-pro. I've nearly finished my new web site layout for my gallery; of which I've had 20 people I know say I should go fully pro. FWIW, of course.

Slide film also gives me very respectable 6000x4000 images; a bit of cleaning turns my reala 100 into very passable ones. The "affordable" consumer digital is closer to 3000x2000 and double that definitely shows pixelization; but that's a matter of time (but as to how much companies want to waste in more throwaway models before making and relying on something decent is another story).

BTW: By large, our main need from petroleum is transportation costs, followed by petrochemical fertilizers.

By and large, I do agree with your points re: wasted shots and loss-of-picture paranoia (so I will be buying a digital image recovery program too)...

On the other hand, negatives retain and are tangible. If I lose all my DVD backups or lose power, I'm sunk there re: digital. :D