Re: paleonet Digital photography again

[Frank Holterhoff <frank@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

There's no generic/universal remote switch (like the old cable shutter-release)?
I guess they don't standardize so that each maker can sell you his own (at $130 a
pop).

Also I note that the Nikon Coolpix 995 (successor to the 990) can go up to ISO
800 (I believe the 990 can only go to ISO 400, is that right?).  This would
improve the depth of field, wouldn't it?

F

TomDeVrie@aol.com wrote:

> I may have been the person who recommended the Nikon Coolpix 990.  It does a
> good job, including getting in close on specimens down to about 1 cm in
> length.  I'm not sure how well it will do with micro-mollusks.
>
> I wish the depth of field was better (f-stop only to 10.8 or at best 11.1).
> The remote switch for taking pictures is too expensive ($130) but it does
> remove a pixel or two of jitter induced by manually depressing the shutter
> button  while the camera is on a stand.  The direct download of files to a
> Mac with a USB port has been problematic and slow with Nikon software.  My
> best results are obtained by moving the image card from the camera to a card
> reader that is directly connected to a USB port.
>
> The typical image size of about 1500-1800 pixels for the long dimension of a
> fossil is enough to produce a 2.5-3" printed or digital image of up to 600
> pixels per inch.  Larger images for reproduction on plates would start to
> lose some resolution.  Thus, I suppose a >3.34 megapixel camera would be
> advantageous for some kinds of specimens.
>
> One cautionary note that I think applies to camera cards used with Macs:
> dragging image files from a window on the computer desktop to the trash is
> apparently not recommended; not everything leaves the camera card; the card
> eventually fills; and ultimately the camera appears not to work when the card
> is loaded and seemingly empty.  Image files need to be removed with software
> resident on the camera while the card is loaded in the camera.
>
> Tom DeVries