If you're considering a dSLR then you should consider a copy stand.
Designed for photgraphing documents and other such work.
Depth of field shouldn't be too much of a problem provided you close
down the aperture.
On 11/20/08, Peter Alefounder <p_alefounder@???> wrote:
>
> "Chris. Aubrey-Smith" <cas194@???> asked:
>> > On Monday 17 November 2008 18:10:05 Peter Alefounder wrote:
>> > > Does anyone have any advice to offer on digital cameras? There are
>> > > a lot of web sites about this, but many appear to be out of date.
>> >
>>
>> Could you confirm that you mean a pocket camera rather than a single-lens
>> reflex, since with the latter most of your concerns would not apply?
>
> I don't see why my concerns would not apply to an SLR, but then I
> am not an expert on cameras. I haven't seen any digital SLRs come
> to think of it: I would not have any objection to one in principle
> provided it met the requirements and was not too expensive.
>
> alan c <aeclist@???> said:
>> with the last two purchases I was careful to take a laptop and live
>> cd in to the shop
>
> Good idea, and if I had a laptop I would do that. However, a laptop is
> something for the more distant future.
>
>> In practice we find that the memory cards are used in external card
>> readers to copy stuff off,
>
> Yes, I have seen card readers with USB connections. Is the file
> format on the cards standard? I would regard this as a less
> convenient solution for image transfer, but it is a possibility if
> the camera won't do it.
>
> Gordon Scott <gordon@???> wrote:
>> > 2. At least 10 megapixels.
>>
>> It seems this is not necessarily a good thing.
>
> Maybe so... but that is what I want. Some old documents can be
> quite hard to read, even the original item. What I want to achieve
> is at least 300dpi for an A4 page, or a little larger (these
> documents are not always convenient sizes), because I might have to
> join several images together. I expect to have to re-size, rotate
> and change perspective: for that, I find it is best to start with a
> higher resolution than I want to finish with.
>
>> It seems the demand for more
>> pixels has resulted in a recent and marked degradation in
>> performance.
>>
>> Unfortunately I can't remember where I saw this report, but it's on the
>> 'Net somewhere.
>
> That's exactly what a review [1] for a 13.6 megapixel camera I
> might otherwise have been interested in said! (Page 3 of that
> review suggests that 10 megapixel cameras can give "decent"
> quality, though.) Looks like it doesn't have a good close-up mode
> either, or not one the reviewer thought to mention, so on those
> counts, I won't be getting one of those.
>
> Gordon Scott <gordon@???> wrote:
>> One other thing of note .. with compacts, think carefully about a
>> viewfinder.
>
> To which john lewis <johnlewis@???> replied:
>> on the other hand, for the intended use of this camera (copying
>> documents), using a viewfinder is likely to be a bit hit or miss.
>
> My thoughts exactly. No problem with a viewfinder for a distant
> target, but close-up I would rather see exactly what is on the CDD
> - particularly if the item needs to be done in sections. I've come
> across manorial court rolls with some pages several feet long. How
> do these cameras cope with things that are not flat? - not just
> because they've been rolled up for centuries, but parchment that
> wasn't flat to start with? Is there sufficient depth of focus?
>
> There are reviews on the web for various cameras, and I have been
> able to eliminate some from consideration. Reviews often include
> sample images, but no information on compatibility with Linux
> systems. So far, I have found nothing better (for my purpose) than
> the Fuji Finepix F20fd. The main problem [2] is saturation. From
> what I can gather from one out-of-date web site [3] Fuji USB
> cameras (which this is) all appear as USB Mass Storage, so as far
> as I can tell, it should work with Linux.
>
> Another one I would like to see is the Olympus MJU 1040 (so far,
> all I've seen is a bogus one attached to a shop display). Again, a
> review [4] suggests some problems with image quality; according to
> [3], earlier MJU series cameras all appeared as USB mass storage,
> so I expect this one would do so as well.
>
> Thanks to those who have made comments, here or by email: all have
> been carefully noted.
>
> Peter.
>
> [1]
> www.trustedreviews.com/digital-cameras/review/2008/10/29/Samsung-L310W/p1
> [2]
> www.digitalcamerareview.com/default.asp?newsID=3573&review=fuji+finepix+z20
> [3] http://www.teaser.fr/~hfiguiere/linux/digicam.html
> [4] http://www.cameras.co.uk/reviews/olympus-mju-1040.cfm
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Please post to: Hampshire@???
> Web Interface: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire
> LUG URL: http://www.hantslug.org.uk
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
--
Sent from Google Mail for mobile | mobile.google.com
