I am looking for a digital camera to take pictures of mineral specimens for a WEB site. The specimens are from 1/4" to about 10" in size and the final images for the WEB site will be no larger than 640 x 480. I may want to be able to do larger images on occasion. The specimens are not flat but highly 3-dimensional so I would like to have good aperture control, preferably f/16 or f/22 (I really need good depth of field) and excellent macro capability.

I will be using this camera in a studio setting and would like to be able to operate it directly from my computer so a USB connection would be nice. I also need an external flash interface for a studio flash.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to use the standard sample macro photos for comparison as they are usually flat objects and it is not possible to evaluate the depth of field.

I have been looking at the Kodak DC265 as the best possibility at this time. Any recommendations for other cameras that I should look at?

-- Doug Miller (mildg@sk.sympatico.ca), May 14, 1999

Answers

From what I have seen the Nikon Coolpix 900 or 950 have the best macro and control. You might want to wait a little bit on the 950 though. It sounds like there maybe an issue with the sharpness of pictures beyond 10 feet. But it probably just because they are so new. I am sure they will resolve it soon. You might look for one that has the ability to add closeup lenses.

-- Bob G. (rgreg88721@hotmail.com), May 15, 1999.

There's a nice discussion of the factors in macro depth of field at: http://www.ultranet.com/~pwilson/techniq.htm, though it seems you realize the the ability to force f/22 aperture will be perhaps the most useful thing in maximizing depth of field.

Based on your comments, the Kodak DC 265 looks good for you: Per the review at http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/DC265/DC265A.HTM, it has: - aperture settable to F/22 - " In external-flash mode, the lens aperture can be controlled manually, in 1-stop increments across its entire range. - USB interface

The Kodak won't get amazingly close, like the Nikon 950, whose macro performance was lauded in the Image Resource review, but with your sample sizes and target resolution, this seems okay (your 1/4" sample should be about 1/2 frame at 640x480, I think). From your point of view, the fact that the Nikon minimum aperture is two stops wider (at about f/11) and the Nikon lacks USB would be seem to be significant drawbacks.

The DC/260 looks like it also meets your needs. Besides the Imaging Resource review, their is a FAQ at http://www.trix.com/dc260/.

-- Richard A. Fowell (fowell@netcom.com), May 16, 1999.