Chris--
 
IMHO, digital images can complement standard photos, but not replace them.
I have a colleague who, at my suggestion, is using a digital camera (and an
SLR) pretty extensively to record petroglyphs here in the state.  The SLR
images are for publication and archives, while the digital images go in his
notes to help jog his memory.  He also shares those images via web pages
and email with colleagues in other parts of the country.
 
As for me, I bring a digital camera when I look at other people's
collections.  Again, I find that the image, while not up to publication
standards, is worth a thousand words in my notes.  If I brought a laptop
into the field, I'd definitely bring a digital camera along too.
 
Chris Clement
 
>Hi All,
>
>Has anyone used a digital camera in the field?
>We've been given a small technology grant and
>are considering the purchase of a digital camera.
>
>Yet, we're a bit unsure as to the relevance of it.
>Is it worth it, or is Kodak still the way to go?
>What are the advantages/disadvantages of it in
>the field?
>
>If anyone has experience could you please e-mail
>off line (unless all of you want to read this stuff)?
>
>Thanks for any help.
>
>Regards,
>Chris Ricciardi
>(BC-ARC)