I need a digicam to replace a Leaf Lumina Digital Camera/Scanner. We take 700 - 1000 pictures per catalogue 3 - 4 times per year. We are taking pictures of coins and other small items that contain great detail. The catalogue is printed in B&W and I just want to know what type of camera I should purchase. I just rented a Kodak DC260 for the weekend and am not impressed. All images are 72 dpi, that's not high enough for print production. Any help or suggestions would be appreciated. Than

-- Bill Brown (wcbrown@home.com), April 04, 1999

Answers

It sounds like you are confusing screen resolution with the image size. The DC 260 has a resolution of 1536 X 1024 pixels which at a printer resolution of 300 dpi should give you a 4X5 print. Kodak claims 8X10. I have looked at the detail from an image from this camera and it is quite good.

What size is the image that you want in your catalogue? Your image size should be twice the screen resolution of the printing process you are using. If your halftone screen is 100dpi then your image resolution should be 200dpi. For the image from the kodak D260 you are looking at approximatly 7X5 which should be adequate for your needs

Hope this helps

-- Jonathan Ratzlaff (jonathanr@clrtech.bc.ca), April 06, 1999.

Resolution shouldn't be a problem for catalog product shots for any recent "prosumer" digital camera. As the previous poster mentioned, Photoshop's default of 72dpi for "unlabeled" images has nothing to do with resolution: at that DPI setting photoshop should be giving you guides indicating a 20x14" image, which is obviously not what you're looking for.

What you DO need to worry about is compatibility with your strobe system, if you're not using hot lights. Make sure whatever camera you buy can run whatever setup you use for the product shots. Optical slaves on digital cameras are not what you want. Cameras to consider inlclude the Kodak DC265 or any of their pro line (eg DCS520, 560), the Canon Powershot Pro 70, the Olympus D-620L, the Nikon Coolpix 900S or upcoming 950.

-- Ben Jackson (ben@ben.com), April 11, 1999.