Hello John,
Like many others I went the digital camera route recently and have
really been convinced by what it gives me. The camera is a Casio QV-4000
giving 4 megapixels. I am not saying that it is the best. I went for
another make but the photostore man persuaded me that this was better value
for money. It cost 650 pounds (around $1000), about the same price as the
original that I had in mind, but at this price it included the IBM Micro
Drive in place of the solid state memory. This gives me a 1GB storage,
enough for almost 1000 pictures. Yes! I have managed to fill it, but it is
simple to erase.
As for quality, it is pretty good, although Casio don't have a brilliant
reputation. They do use the Canon lens that most others fit, and this is
supposed to be quite good. As for close-ups etc., it will focus down to
about 12" and when added to its 3x zoom it means that quite small objects
can fill the picture. (I can give you exact figures if you want them). It
has possibilities for adding further telephoto or macro lenses. I have
attached a lens of my own for close-up work and it runs quite well. I am
using it for portable dials and the results are generally excellent. I can
get a maker's signature to fill the screen! However, I do put it into
manual mode with f8 to get the best depth of field.
We recently went to Hamburg with the Scientific Instrument Society and I
decided to get photos from everyone who took them and to issue them on a
CD-ROM. I agree, scanned prints were not too good, but I could 'cheat' with
Paintshop Pro and improve them somewhat. Films onto CD were better but the
very best were from digital cameras. However, I did compare shots taken by
different two cameras. Where we photographed the same subject a comparison
was possible. The other camera actually gave better resolution, and this
was only a 2 megapixel cheap camera! I think that the reason for this could
be either the auto-focus or the lens. Quite frankly, I think that the
digital part (CCD) is now better than the lens. Lenses can only go so far,
so until better lenses are introduced I can see little benefit in going to
higher resolutions.
I could go on all day, but I hope that these comments help you. If you
need any shots sending or want more information, then please ask.
Regards,
Mike Cowham
Cambridge UK
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Carmichael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Roger Bailey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Sundial List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 5:19 PM
Subject: Maximizing photo quality
> Hello Bill & Roger:
>
> After having reviewed and edited at least a couple hundred photos sent to
me
> from everybody at the conference, I had a chance to compare the photo
qualty
> produced by several different methods. My goal was to find out which
method
> produced the finest and sharpest digital on screen viewing resolution.
This
> is what I learned:
>
> 1. The worst quality photos are produced from scanning prints.
>
> 2. The best quality photos (taken at about 4 ft. distance) were taken on
> Bill's handheld digital 4 megabyte Olympus Camedia D-40.
>
> 3. Roger's method of having a photoshop digitally develop his 35mm film
> directly onto a CD produced excellent results far better than scanning,
but
> still not as good as Bill's digital camera.
>
> 4. Digital CD's from film are somewhat expensive at 17 dollars for 24
> exposures.
>
> Roger and I have been thinking that his film on CD method is best because
we
> were both scared of the high cost of good digital cameras. Also, I don't
> think the cheaper digital cameras have interchangeable lenses for
close-ups
> or telephoto shots. (or do they?)
>
> 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?
>
> (Watch out Bill, Roger's liable to designate you official photographer at
> the Conference in Banff!)
>
>
> John
>
> John L. Carmichael Jr.
> Sundial Sculptures
> 925 E. Foothills Dr.
> Tucson Arizona 85718
> USA
>
> Tel: 520-696-1709
> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Website: <http://www.sundialsculptures.com>
>
>
> -
>
>
-
