Greetings. Has anyone used a Cannon DC 220. I think I would like
the resolution better at 1000x1200. I think that not much can
fit on a flopy disk so cable hookup to the computer would be the
best thing. Any input? David Anderson
Greetings. Has anyone used a Cannon DC 220. I think I would like the resolution better at 1000x1200. I think that not much can fit on a flopy disk so cable hookup to the computer would be the best thing. Any input?
Better resolution is sharper if viewers have computer monitors
that support the higher resolutions; however, the vast majority
of the world’s computers still use 640x480 resolution. What are
the pictures to be used for? And what will the photo studio
environment be? Is the viewing field really the resolution the
picture is stored in? Maybe not. Check and see about this.
Scott Carpenter, The Net Image Agency and amateur gemstone collector
Has anyone used a Cannon DC 220. I think I would like the resolution better at 1000x1200. I think that not much can fit on a flopy disk so cable hookup to the computer would be the best thing.
The Canon Power Shot 350 uses small floppy disks that come in 1
meg - 6 meg, maybe more. We have a 6 meg disk and it is plenty -
takes about 45 pictures on fine setting. There are 3 settings:
fine, normal, and economy, so by using economy you can fit more
pictures on it. And it is great to be able to pick up the camera
and go - it has replaced our film camera. If you need the cable
you would not be able to do this. I would give you more
definate #'s on how much memory the disk has and how many
pictures it holds, but my husband has the camera with him now.
If you want, I could check later. The only draw back about the
disk is that it is expensive if you want to buy another one -
about $50 - $100 depending on how much memory it has. But the
camera comes with the 1 meg one and you can clear it as soon as
you save/print the pictures you want.
Dear John,
As a longtime photo bug, I have tried several digital cameras. As of
today, the major problem is the interchangeable lens problems. The
most recent better digital camera’s such as the Nikon 990, do not have
the Macro capability necessary to the real close up photos. Gem
Vision’s Image Dome solves some of these problems by having "add on"
in front of the camera to increase magnification without loosing field
of depth. Nikon’s 990 uses an internal auto focus system as opposed to
an infrared auto focus and takes a very good picture. The Nikon is a
3.3 meg picture which gives great resolution. I have had several over
the Nikon’s and the Kodak’s. I would recommend whatever camera you get
to get an USB interface as it can take a long time to get the pictures
from the camera into the computer. I currently use a flash card system
using a SanDisk. If you use the computer for other tasks, this can be
advantage. Sony is coming out with a small CD writeable system which
has a lot of promise but the lenses factor does not apply itself to
jewelry. Nikon has an interchangable lens digital F1 but it is over
$10,000 without lenses the last time I checked. Kodak has a similar
type system at near the same price. Canon makes some good digital VCR
type cameras with great interchanglable lenses but in the still mode,
the camera only shoots in 640 x480 resolution last time I checked.
To shoot, micro photo's thru a microscope is a entirely different
set of problems. First, the exposure is extremely long. In 35mm
camera, shooting diamonds one must use a 80A or 80B filter which is a
blue filter. Exposure runs close to a second and one must “push” the
film to get colors to come out even close. For shooting macro 10 power
type pictures of diamonds, I have gotten the best results using the
original Gem Vision Camera which is a Hi Dollar RGB Camera using a
capture card with a Macro style lenses. I can shoot "Hearts & Arrows"
pictures, and diamond imperfection pictures good to vvs using this
set up. I have not been able to find an easy, or cheap way to take
good photo’s thru a microscope using a straight digital camera. It is
easier for me to take the picture using 35mm and scan it into the
computer. I must admit I never do this as I can take a better picture
using the Gem Vision big camera.
If you would like to see some results, I am glad to email you some
jpegs.
Dan Dement
Digital cameras have to be all things, and we adapt them to macro
jewelry work using various setups. Recently I saw a dedicated imaging
system that impressed me greatly. Larry Paul, the caster I work with
in Philadelphia, showed me his setup, a box that looked like a
microwave oven. There was a big lens stack sticking up out of the top
of the box with a cable to the computer. When he opened the box to put
in a sample, I could see that all faces inside were translucent and
lighted. The monitor showed the sample lit evenly from all sides with
no shadows, but he could vary lighting conditions. I don’t know what
it’s called, but he said he’d bought it from Gesswein, and it cost
about $3000.
It was very tempting, but I want an all around digital camera to
photograph other things, too. I’m very interested in this discussion,
because I’m ready to buy one, too. I’m tending toward the Nikon 990.
Trouble is, the technology is improving so fast that every time I get
tempted to commit, another comes out for similar cost, and better. I
know that whatever I buy will be surpassed in short order. The big
question is, how good is good enough? I know that web images can be
done fairly low res, but I’ll also be using it to shoot high res
images to be used for slides, and that takes the megapixels.
One idea I did get from looking at Larry’s system is to use the
computer monitor rather than the camera’s LCD viewfinder when shooting
jewelry. I think the USB connection will allow me to do that. We’ll
see.
Janet Kofoed