I am an art dealer specializing in sculpture -- objects ranging in size from 2 to 30 inches, in which delineation of form is a more important consideration than color. These are expected to be photographed in a studio setting using either incandescent or tungsten lighting, with a tripod mounted camera. Though all this is new to me (I haven't worked with flash either), I recognize that carefully controlled lighting is critical to my product. Photos are to be published on the Web as well as printed on my HP-895 inkjet printer (up to 7x9 prints will suffice). I would appreciate suggestions as to what equipment --lighting as well as camera -- would be ideal for my purposes. Important factors: sufficient and best resolution for my purposes, macro capability, ease of usage and download, minimal post-production tweaking (but with good software package), reasonable storage capacity with no or low compression, reasonable color accuracy.

-- Peter Michael Boyd (petermichael.boyd@worldnet.att.net), September 03, 1999

Answers

Sounds like you're describing the nikon 950. Best macro in the biz and can take external flash. The oly 2500 with its awesome flash integration sounds like a match too but it's not out yet and costs more. Anything without an external flash capability would be out in my opinion for your purpose.

For ease/speed of image transfer get a USB or parallel port card reader, or even better a PCMCIA adaptor if you can use one.

-- benoit (foo@bar.com), September 03, 1999.

Response to Benoit and clarification: 1. I'm not sure I'll need 2 megapixels if I'm only doing (max) 7x9 prints. 2. I expect to be using tungsten or incandescent spotlights (will white balance selection allow me to choose either?) for lighting, therefore am I correct in assuming that I won't need either onboard or external flash? 3. Although I'll photograph as small as 2 inches, this will be an exception -- will shoot 12" objects predominantly.

-- Peter Michael Boyd (petermichael.boyd@worldnet.att.net), September 04, 1999.

If delineation of form is most important to you, consider spending the extra money and buying a 2MP unit like the Oly 2000Z or the Nikon which also does great macros according to what I've read here and elsewhere. I can get a decent 8x10" print from my 1280x1024 PDR-M1 on an original Epson Stylus Color, but I've never tried it with a detailed macro shot.

If it was just a question of viewing the images on a screen I'd say 1280x1024 would be fine, but if you're using this to make money, detail is an important requirement, and you'll be printing -I'd say spend the extra money. It'll be a longevity investment, if nothing else, since 2MP will probably be surpassed sometime next year, and 1280x1024 will probably become the new low-end standard eventually. The other advantages of the more expensive 2MP models may come in handy as well, they tend to offer considerably more in the way of manual options. Some of which may very helpful to you. You're also paying for that, sometimes very helpful, optical zoom.

All opinions aside, why not just download a few sample images from the comparometer pages of this site and print those full size files on your printer at the sizes you'd like and see which make the grade for you? You'll find examples from both the Nikon and the Oly models, and even my reasonably cheap l'il PDR-M1! Good Hunting!

One more opinion, if you don't HAVE TO buy one immediately, Toshiba is coming out with what appears to be a very nice unit in the PDR-M5. (late Sept/very early Oct according to a Toshiba employee(?) who wrote in...) It is not a Fuji clone as the earlier models were(like my Toshiba PDR-M1/Fuji MX-500 and the MX600/PDR-M3), and should be a pretty great camera for the money. [Now we all know where my loyalties and bias's lie(lay? recline? slump? sprawl?)] From what I've seen it will be in the 2000/950 class, or better in some ways, but priced CONSIDERABLY (think a hundred or so)lower. :-) The Fuji's of late seem to leave something to be desired in terms of burst modes, but the Toshibas seem to have considerably more horsepower under the hood. For instance, with the PDR-M4, the startup and shot to shot time is very fast and supposedly doesn't even require large buffer memories for reasonable shot to shot times even in the hi-res modes. I'll want to see a PDR-M5. :-) Granted, the speed and burst modes won't be very important for your uses, but it promises to be a nice camera all around. The PDR-M4 shots are probably very indicative of what you can expect from the PDR-M5.

-- Gerald Payne (gmp@francorp.francomm.com), September 05, 1999.