Tony Moss wrote: > > John et al, > > >So here's my two questions to Bill: > > > >1. How much did your camera cost (If you don't mind telling)? > >2. Does your camera have changeable lenses? > >2. Since it is digital, can you make a close-up shot digitally without a > >close up or telephoto lens? > >3. How close to your subject can you get and still stay in focus? > > Having soldiered on for years with an early Kodak digicam with a 2x zoom > and a useful 8" 'macro' focus used for most of my distributed JPEGs I > eventually bit the bullet and upgraded to a Nikon CoolPix 5700 mainly > because of its 8x optical plus 4x digital zoom. It will also focus right > down to 30mm or 1.2" distance without additional lenses. Certainly is is > a high-end choice but if you need a camera which will get closeups of > those way-up-high sundials or a crisp image of 'nit on a gnat's nut' this > little wonder has everything packed into a beautifully engineered > magnesium alloy body. How I wish I'd bought it for the BSS Austria trip. > > A word to the wise - OPTICAL zoom is the thing. Digital 'zoom' just > clips the middle from the image. > > Tony Moss. > -
Yes, Tony's remark is important for newcomers to digital photo: optical zoom is the thing, and digital zoom should just be forgotten... the clip being enlarged, the quality is going down fast! Moreover, the digital zooming is better done later on on a pc with any image processing programme, like Photoshop or siblings, allowing to choose the best clip framing and the exact enlargement/resolution balance. No wonder the D-40 with 4 Mpixels gives good results! I use an Olympus Camedia 2100 (2.1 Mpixels) which has a 10x optical zoom, AND a stabilization circuit which should help to get focused images at even the highest focal length (~380mm for a 35mm SLR): nice for high placed sundials! (It's -inevitably- a bit bulky and retro-looking, but light and well thought. I'm not sure whether it is still available.) At 2 Mpix prints look just perfect in standard 10x15cm size; I have not tried larger prints, but I'm told they are still OK at 18x24 or even 24x30 (using an apt photo printer, of course), but of course more is better... except in file size. If the thing is viewing pictures on screen, and even more to send them over low-bandwith Interne connections, then a lower resolution (72 or 96 dpi) is adequate: the best is again to reduce the resolution in software later, keeping the original hi-res pictures for printing. I've heard of a recent Nikon (D-100?) which uses interchangeable standard Nikon lenses... and costs about 1000 EUR. One more word about scanning: I think John Carmichael's conclusion should be taken with caution, as the scanning can be done in very different conditions, besides the quality of the scanner and of the scanned picture itself. Cheers, Thierry -- __________________________________ Thierry van Steenberghe 50.5 N 4.3 E mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] __________________________________ -
