With digital cameras one also has to consider the medium for viewing
images. High resolution colour printers are beyond the reach of most of us
and most images are in any case probably viewed on a PC with a screen
resolution of 640x480 or 800x600.
I agree that in many cases there is no substitute for film but we use the
'cheap' Kodak digital cameras quite a bit and find them invaluable for
knocking off shots for web sites, preparing electronic slide shows for
lectures and sundry miscellaneous purposes - and the results are
available virtually instantaneously.
I guess Polaroid has its place but I think the subjective quality of the
cameras is surprisingly good- we're impressed anyway!



On Tue, 30 Jan 1996, Melanie Solomon wrote:

> PC Magazine, Feb. 6 '96 issue reviews 6 entry-level digital cameras (the
> article includes image comparisons).  They conclude that none of the
> under-$1000.00 models are good enough to replace a film camera for
> professional-quality images.  It seems to me that these digital cameras are a
> good replacement for Polaroids for quick, "permanent" and
> not-very-sharp-in-the-details documentation.
>

Tim

**********************************************************************
*            Tim Bosher           *      Museum of Victoria          *
* [log in to unmask]          *  Information Systems Branch      *
*      Phone: +61 3 651 6751      *      Fax: +61 3 651 6180         *
*                                                                    *
*      There is no time like the present to postpone                 *
*      what you should be doing.                                     *
*                                                                    *
**********************************************************************