On Mon, 6 Jan 1997, Harry Needham wrote:

> The comment about tailoring the quality of the camera to the application
> is very well taken. For putting pictures on your web site (a gallery
> tour, for example) one of the cheapie Kodak digital cameras (under $2K)
> is fine.
>
> For reproduction quality images we use a Nikon top end camera ($20K).

There is an excellent article about the new digital cameras, their overall
quality, and their utility (or lack thereof), along with a second review
article, in the Jan/Feb 97 issue of "Computer Arts".  It comes with a CD
which includes, among *many* other things, sample images taken using
several of the new "mini" digital cameras which you can compare,
manipulate, etc.

The author's conclusion?  They are "very expensive, [and] limited in
usefulness ... A conventional [35mm] camera plus high-quality scanner
costs considerably less, and produces much better results, and the chances
are you've got at least one of them already ..."

Having tried out several digital cameras (Casio, Kodak and Canon), I would
have to agree.  You can do so much more with a high resolution scanned
image than you can with a low-res digital camera image that there is
simply no contest. And given that the prices of really decent scanners
are dropping like rocks, you would be *much* further ahead buying one,
equipping it with a transparency adapter, and manipulating images with
suitable software (e.g. Adobe Photoshop).  That is, in fact, what I did
myself last month, and I couldn't be happier.

Chris J.-Andersen ([log in to unmask])

*************************************************************************
DISCLAIMER:  The opinions expressed here are strictly those of the author
             and not those of his employer!
*************************************************************************