How To Buy Digital Cameras & Web Cameras

There are many good reasons to buy a digital camera or Web cam. Digital cameras let you take as many photos as you want without worrying about the cost of film or developing. You can also see the results of your efforts instantly, without waiting for photo developing. Digital cameras and Web cams also provide other benefits—they let you engage in videoconferencing, send photos as email attachments, or even help post images to the Web.

Before you choose a camera, it's important to research the camera models you are considering. Many people make the mistake of simply examining camera spec sheets, but there are a number of performance-related and subjective factors that a spec sheet will not convey. Below, we list some of the factors you should consider when selecting a digital camera or Web cam.

Digital Cameras.
Consider your needs before buying a digital camera. You don't need a powerful, high-end model if all you want is a simple point-and-shoot camera for posting snapshots to a Web page or exchanging images by email. A camera with a shooting resolution of 1,024 x 768 pixels will give you more than enough image quality for these tasks.

Resolution. A camera's resolution refers to the number of pixels (or single dots) it uses to create images. In general, resolution is often used to describe the sharpness and clarity of an image. Typically, the higher resolution a camera has, the better its images will be.
A digital camera with a megapixel resolution means it has a resolution of at least 1 million pixels. A camera with 2-megapixel quality has a resolution of approximately 2 million pixels, such as 1,600 x 1,200 pixels. Most two-megapixel cameras are capable of producing quality 5- x 7-inch photo prints. Currently, you can find many cameras with a 2-megapixel resolution for $200 to $300. Just a couple years ago, a 2-megapixel camera might have cost over $500.

If you want to print 8- x 10-inch photos, the camera’s resolution is important. Some high- quality 2-megapixel cameras can produce decent 8- x 10-inch prints. However, a 3-megapixel camera should print quality full-page prints with very few visible flaws. Cameras with three-megapixel quality are widely available for about $250 to $500.

You can also find cameras in higher resolutions, such as 4, 5, and 6 megapixels. It’s generally accepted that a 6-megapixel camera offers near film-quality results, however, such cameras are still very expensive. However, high-megapixel cameras come in handy if you have a printer capable of printing on larger paper or if you want to crop images and still print 8- x 10-inch photos.

Other important factors. You should consider much more than resolution. A quality 3-megapixel camera may very well produce better images than a cheap 4-megapixel camera. Read independent product reviews, such as those on this Web site, to learn about the image quality of specific camera models.

You should also consider what manual features you want. Just as you can choose between simple point-and-shoot film cameras and advanced film cameras with manual focus, you can choose between very basic digicams and digital cameras that contain a wealth of manual functions. If you buy a more advanced camera, look for one that has easy-to-use menus and controls, as well as a detailed users manual.

If you want a little bit of control over your images but don’t want to spend the money on an advanced model with features you will never use, look for a camera that includes WB (white balance) and EV (exposure value) control. Many cameras that cost less than $400 include such settings. Other features you might consider are a self-timer, macro mode, and an AF-assist (auto-focus assist) lamp.

You should also carefully consider the camera’s zoom capabilities. Many manufacturers print a combined-zoom figured on the packaging or on the body of the camera. Combined zoom includes both optical and digital zoom. Digital zoom is not a true zoom. As you apply more digital zoom, image quality deteriorates quickly. Optical zoom, on the other hand, maintains image quality and is a true zoom. For this reason, a camera with a combined zoom of only 4X (4X optical and 1X digital) will have better zoom power than a camera with a combined zoom of 20X (2X optical and 10X digital).

Many cameras let you capture video and sound. Some also double as Web cams with full videoconferencing capabilities. Many mid- or high-end digital cameras also have burst or continuous shooting modes, manual focus, flash synchs or hot shoes, a threaded lens, and various metering settings.

Also consider the camera’s design. Make sure it is comfortable to hold and that you can operate the controls easily. You should also consider batteries carefully. Cameras that use standard AA alkaline or NiMH (nickel-metal hydride) batteries are convenient because you can easily buy a new set of batteries if needed. However, they generally suffer from very short battery life. If you want to get more battery power before recharging batteries, look for a camera that uses a Li-Ion of InfoLithium battery pack. You will want a spare, though, because if you have battery problems, it will be harder to find a quick replacement. We prefer cameras that ship with a battery charger. Some manufacturers make the chargers an optional accessory.

For storage, most consumer models ship with a flash memory card. There are many types of memory cards, but you can only use cards that are compatible with your camera. For example, Canon cameras use CF (CompactFlash) cards, Sony cameras use MSes (Sony Memory Sticks), and today’s Olympus cameras use xD-Picture Cards (eXtreme Digital Picture Cards). (Older Olympus cameras used SMCs [SmartMedia Cards].) The most common types of flash memory cards for digital cameras are CF, SMC, xD, MMC (MultiMedia Card), SD (Secure Digital), and MS.

Web Cameras.
Like digital cameras, Web cams come in many varieties. In fact, Web cams are some of the most uniquely designed peripherals on the market. But before you buy a model based on its appearance, put it to the test. Many models have designs that leave them wobbling or tipping over whenever the monitor is bumped. Look for a Web cam that has a secure mounting device and a solid, heavy build. Otherwise, you'll spend an annoying amount of time readjusting it.

Nearly all Web cameras are capable of videoconferencing, video chat, posting images to Web pages, attaching video to e-mail, and capturing still images. Some models include an integrated shutter button to take still images away from the computer without having to use the keyboard. In addition, almost every Web cam on the market today uses a USB connection, making it easy to install. Many models also have a built-in microphone. If not, you'll have to provide your own.

Usually, the image quality that Web cams produce isn't anything to write home about. Yet, many models provide sharpness, color accuracy, and focus that are acceptable for videoconferencing. Look for a model that can handle varying lighting situations and hold the focus well into the background. Also, Web cams with automatic white balance are preferable.

Many models have top resolutions of 640 x 480 pixels. Others can reach better resolutions, but may do it with interpolation software. For Web cams, a higher resolution isn't as important for capturing video. Typically, a higher resolution means the camera will grab fewer fps (frames per second) of video, resulting in choppy, jerky motions. A camera with a resolution of 320 x 240 pixels for grabbing a smooth 30fps (television quality) of video is the norm.

Perhaps the best feature about Web cams is their price. Many name-brand cameras currently cost less than $40. In general, you should be able to find a Web cam with a quality performance, software bundle, and features for less than $60.

http://www.smartcomputing.com/editorial/articleht.asp?guid=zdahv6py&article=Articles/Hardware/2000/H0307/62h07.asp

Digital Camera & Web Camera Terms To Know

analog phone line— Also referred to as POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service), an analog phone line is a communication line that transmits information. Most homes use analog phone lines, making them popular for videoconferencing. A common problem with analog phone lines concerning videoconferencing is their limited bandwidth (which refers to how fast and how much information transmits over a line in a certain amount of time).

CCD (charge-coupled device)—An instrument with semiconductors arranged so that the output (electrical charge) from one semiconductor is the input of the next semiconductor. This type of array serves as the light-detecting component in many digital cameras, video cameras, and optical scanners. CCDs and CMOS (complementary metal-oxide semiconductor) components are the light-sensitive sensors used to capture digital images. Some manufacturers prefer CCDs while others use CMOS chips instead. CMOS chips are easier and less expensive to make and require less power than CCDs, but CMOS chips are vulnerable to damage from static electricity, and they often do not deliver the same image quality as CCDs.

CMOS (complementary metal-oxide semiconductor)—An electronic component used for RAM (random-access memory) and fast data switching. These semiconductors are made of two metal-oxide field effects transistors for high speed and low power use. However, static electricity can easily damage them. As mentioned in the definition for CCDs (charge-coupled devices), CMOS chips are easier and cheaper to make and require less power than CCDs, but they often do not deliver the same image quality as CCDs.

compression—Compression involves squeezing data down in size. This is an important factor for digital images because if images aren't compressed, a digital camera can only store a few of them in its memory. Some compression types negatively alter an image's quality. Most digital cameras combat this by offering multiple quality settings, making it possible for users to save many low-quality images or just a few high-quality ones. Some cameras also have raw modes that save shots without any compression at all. JPEG (Joint Photographic Experts Group) and FlashPix are two common compression formats used by digital cameras.

digital camera—In short, digital cameras use light-sensitive chips instead of film to capture still or moving images and store them as bits of information in internal or removable memory. Users can quickly transfer images to a computer for use in different applications. For example, users often attach digital images to e-mail messages, use them to enhance World Wide Web pages, or make them into colorful prints with a photo printer.

fps (frames per second)—A measurement of the speed at which a video switches from one frame to the next sequential frame to create the appearance of a moving image. Cameras with higher frame rates typically display video motion that is much smoother. Television-quality motion requires 30fps.

frame rate—A Web camera's frame rate refers to the number of frames (individual pictures) of video it captures per second. Frame rates are usually measured in fps (frames per second). Motion in videos with high frame rates appears more fluid than in videos with low frame rates. About 30fps is required to trick the human eye into seeing full motion. However, due to bandwidth limitations, many transmissions cannot reach that rate, resulting in the jerky, choppy motion that's sometimes associated with videoconferencing.

interpolation—Interpolation refers to the use of software to enhance the true resolution of a digital image and is often used with digital cameras and scanners. Through interpolation, the software copies pixels and pastes them among existing pixels to enhance the image's resolution.

JPEG (Joint Photographic Experts Group)—A color-image graphics compression format named for the committee that designed the standard image compression algorithm. Using compression, computer files can be altered to take up less storage space. In the JPEG image compression system, some data is sacrificed to achieve high rates of compression. Ratios of 100:1 or higher are possible, which means that a 100MB graphics file could potentially be reduced to 1MB in length. However, ratios over 10:1 or 20:1, depending on the particular image, begin to show noticeable image degradation. The more loss tolerated, the more the image can be compressed. Compression is achieved by dividing the picture into tiny pixel blocks, which are halved over and over until the ratio is achieved. JPEG files are supported by Web browsing applications, such as Netscape Navigator and Internet Explorer, and end with either the .JPG or .JPEG extensions.

lag time—Digital cameras typically require a few seconds from when users press the shutter button to when a camera stores the image into its memory; this is the camera's lag time. Also, most cameras need two to 10 seconds to convert an image into digital data, compress it, and store it as a file; this is known as recovery time.

LCD (liquid-crystal display)—The liquid-crystal display is a small monitor on the back of a digital camera that's used to preview and review images. The LCD also acts as a display to help adjust camera settings and scroll through menu options.

megapixel—This term refers to a digital camera feature that allows it to capture an image with a resolution of at least 1 million pixels, such as a resolution of 1,280 x 1,024 pixels. Two megapixel refers to a camera with a resolution of at least 2 million pixels. Three megapixel refers to a model with a resolution of at least 3 million pixels, such as 2,048 x 1,536 pixels.

RAM (random-access memory)—The standard type of memory that you can write data to or read data from. Information in RAM can be stored and accessed randomly, and therefore, more rapidly. RAM, which is also known as main memory, is the vital workspace of computing. The more RAM a system contains, the more information it can handle, and the more programs it can run at one time.

recovery time—Most digital cameras need two to 10 seconds to convert an image into digital data, compress it, and store it as a file; this is known as recovery time. Also, cameras typically require a few seconds from when users press the shutter button to when a camera stores the image into its memory; this is the camera's lag time.

resolution—The resolution of an image refers to its sharpness and clarity and reflects the number of pixels (a pixel is a picture element or a dot in an image) an image contains. The amount of bits used to make up each pixel determines how many colors display in an image. Put simply, a one-bit image appears monochrome, an eight-bit image produces a 256-color display, and a 24-bit image has more than 16 million colors. In general, the higher the resolution an image has, the better the image should be.

storing and transferring images—Most digital cameras use removable memory cards to store images, although a few still use internal memory. When a camera's internal memory is full, you must delete or transfer some images to a computer before you can take more photos. Removable cards are much more convenient because they insert directly into the camera and allow users to interchange them, much like rolls of film, whenever the camera's memory is full. Types of removable cards include 3.5-inch diskettes, PC Cards, and minicards, such as CompactFlash and SmartMedia. The use of removable cards and adapters has made transferring images easier and faster than connecting a camera to the computer's serial port and uploading the images. In addition, many cameras use a USB (Universal Serial Bus) connection for even faster transfer speeds.

TIFF (Tagged Image File Format)—A common way to store bit-mapped graphics images on both PCs and Macintosh computers. TIFF is a platform-independent format, which means a TIFF image created on a PC can be viewed on a Macintosh and vice versa. (Bit-map files, on the other hand, are a graphic format for the Windows environment.) The TIFF format was specifically designed for scanned images and is commonly used for that purpose. It also can be used in some applications to save images created on a computer. TIFF graphics can be color, grayscale, or black and white. The file extension for TIFF images is .TIF.

USB (Universal Serial Bus)—Until recently, most digital cameras transferred images to the computer using a serial cable. Now, more cameras are using the faster USB connection, a new type of external bus expected to replace parallel and serial ports. A USB connection has a maximum transfer speed of 12Mbps (megabits per second). A main advantage of USB over traditional ports is that it offers easy expandability; up to 127 devices can be daisy chained, far more than the number of devices supported by traditional ports. All USB devices support plug and play and hot swapping, as well. The computer automatically recognizes any USB device as soon as it's plugged in or added to the chain. Desktop computers that support USB typically have two four-pin USB ports: one for a keyboard and mouse daisy chain, the other to daisy chain all other USB devices. USB was introduced in computers shipped in 1997 and has received a boost from Windows 98, which offers better support for the standard than Windows 95.

video capture card—Some Web cameras use a video capture card to grab video and convert it into digital information. Other Web cams use a parallel port connection, eliminating the need for a video capture card; however, more Web cams are beginning to use a USB connection instead.

videoconferencing—The face-to-face communication via computers using Web cameras, microphones, speakers, and communication lines to transmit compressed audio and video data. Participants sit in front of a Web camera and speak into a microphone. As this occurs, the data compresses and transmits to another participant who receives the data by viewing the video on a computer screen and hearing audio via the speakers.

Web cameras—These devices, also known as Web cams or desktop digital video cameras, are small, they focus on one object (such as a person sitting at a computer), and they usually sit on top of a PC monitor. Web cams capture still images and video motion and then transmit this data for such purposes as videoconferencing, video e-mail, and enhancing World Wide Web pages.

http://www.smartcomputing.com/editorial/articleht.asp?guid=zdahv6py&article=Articles/Hardware/2000/H0307/64h07.asp

Choosing a Medium Format Camera

As editor of photo.net, I'm exposed to a constant stream of questions from people who can't decide what 35mm point and shoot or SLR camera to buy. Given that there is hardly any difference between modern Japanese 35mm cameras and yet folks are paralyzed with indecision, I sometimes wonder how it is that anyone comes to buy a medium format camera. Before you evaluate lens quality, brand reputation, included gizmos, electronic wizardry, or ease of renting accessories, you have to decide what size negatives you want!

Medium format cameras use 120 or 220 roll film, which is about 6 centimeters wide (2 and 1/4 inches). This size of roll film was introduced in 1898 by Kodak for its Folding Pocket KODAK Camera. It thus seems safe to say that the world has reached agreement on the proper height for a medium-format negative. On the other hand, nobody has ever agreed on the proper width. There are many standard widths for 120 camera frames: 645, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, 6x9, 6x12, and 6x17. These numbers are ostensibly in centimeters although in practice a 6x6 camera such as a Hasselblad will expose a 56 x 56 mm frame.

My personal choice
I like 6x6. I find that I take better photographs when I park the camera on a tripod, look down onto the ground glass, and evaluate the composition as though I were looking at a finished photo. This is known as "waist-level viewing" and it is only really easy with a square-format camera.

How good would your pictures be if you had to decide on the frame molding shape, frame material, mat size, and mat color at the moment of exposure? Being forced to make all of these decisions would probably distract you from making images. Part of the workload of a 35mm or 4x5 photographer is deciding whether the subject would be better served by a horizontal or vertical image. Personally, I find that my photography improves if I'm not forced to think about cropping and image ratio at exposure time. I experiment with cropping and horizontal or vertical presentation at night with the square chromes on a light table.

Some of my favorite images have turned out to be square. This is especially true when the photograph is of a pattern or a collection of objects. The viewer can see the pattern better if he or she is not hammered into thinking in one direction or another by a rectangular frame.

The folks who make Hasselblad argue eloquently for the square format in The Medium Format Advantage. One of their arguments is that you shouldn't lug around the weight of a lens that you aren't using. Lenses project circular image disks. If you park a rectangular section of film behind the lens, you're wasting much of this "circle of good definition". If you expose circular frames of film, you're wasting much of the film. If you expose square frames of film that fit exactly inside the image circle, you're not wasting any film and you're wasting as little image circle as possible. Thus the lenses for a Hasselblad (6x6) are much lighter than the lenses for any 6x7 camera.

Which 6x6 camera is best? If you're rich and strong, I like the Rollei 6008 single-lens reflex system. If you are traveling and want something light, the Mamiya 6 rangefinder system is wonderful. If you're poor, you might consider a twin-lens reflex such as the Yashica 124 or Mamiya.

In fairness to 6x6 detractors, I'll show this photograph of Boston from the banks of the Charles River by MIT. They would say "look at all that wasted space at the bottom of the frame". The truth of the matter is that this is a terrible picture, ruined by the lack of any foreground subject. It would have been a waste of film even with my Fuji 617 camera. If you can't fill a 6x6 frame with interesting stuff then you won't have a good picture. If you are able to fill a rectangle's worth with interesting stuff, then you won't mind cropping off a bit of film.

My other personal choice
The 645 format is the smallest, lightest, and cheapest roll-film design. Negatives are a little squatter than the standard 35mm frame (24x36mm) and therefore full-frame printing on standard paper sizes such as 8x10 need not require a cropping decision. What you get is a sharper deeper negative that enlarges beyond 11x14 with more grace and is easier to handle if you do your own darkroom work. Sadly, it is also vastly more expensive and difficult to scan than a 35mm neg, so keep that in mind if you want to stand tall on the Web with lots of photos.

Fuji has done great things to promote this format. They make 645 lenses that are just as good as Hasselblad's 6x6 lenses. They charge less than half the price. Then they throw in a perfectly good body behind the lens for free! Sometimes Fuji puts a meter in the body, something that apparently costs 'Blad about $5,000 extra. Sometimes Fuji puts in an autofocus mechanism (they were the first to do so in the medium-format world). Sometimes Fuji adds a wide-to-normal zoom lens! Whatever they do, the integrated camera, body, meter, and lens costs about as much as a Hasselblad or Rollei film back.

The most collectible Fuji 645 is the old folding model with a 75mm lens. I have a GS645W from this series that takes great wide-angle pictures with a 45/5.6 lens (equivalent to 28mm in a 35mm system). The modern Fujis that you can buy from the photo.net recommended retailers operate much like 35mm point-and-shoot cameras. (See Medium Format Digest's Fuji section for more on these cameras.)

If you want something with the flexibility and features of a standard Canon or Nikon SLR, consider the Pentax 645N autofocus system. If you feel compelled to pay double or triple Pentax's lens prices, the Contax AF 645 system is for you. The lenses have a Zeiss brand name, in which I'd put little stock, especially given that they're probably made in Japan by Kyocera/Yashica. What is intriguing is that the lenses contain Canon EOS-style ultrasonic motors. Pentax uses the ancient Minolta/Nikon-style screwdriver-blade-in-the-body method of autofocus.

6x7
Photographers on portrait assignment for magazines often use the 6x7 format. The weight isn't a problem since they have assistants, rolling carts, and advance planning.

If you don't have a flotilla of assistants, your only real options are the Fuji rangefinders (very cheap but no meter) and Mamiya 7 rangefinder (sort of cheap if you buy it in Asia; meter in the body and interchangeable lenses including a delicious super-wide lens). If you want to pretend to be a magazine portrait photographer, invest in the unbelievably heavy and clunky Mamiya RB or RZ67 system (see the archived threads in the Medium Format Digest). If you want to pretend to be a starving artistic nature photographer, throw a Pentax 6x7 II system into your beat-up full-size van. This is a huge 4-pound SLR body that includes a prism the result is what looks like an old Nikon on steroids. Lenses are sensibly priced.

6x8
Fuji makes a very interesting GX 680 III camera. It is similar in size and weight to the huge Mamiya RB/RZ system but you get modern electronics and the same perspective controls that you'd find on the front standard of a view camera.

6x9
Fuji makes a rangefinders that are remarkably cheap, light, compact, and high quality (as of 1999, you can choose between 65mm and 90mm lenses). Regrettably they don't include a meter.

6x12
6x12 is a panoramic format that is interesting because it is the largest hunk of roll film that will fit into a standard 4x5 enlarger. If your ambitions stretch to larger formats, you'll be limited to contact prints, digital imaging, or professional photo labs.

If you already own a 4x5 view camera, a cheap way to get into 6x12 is with a roll-film back. You're saved the hassle of loading film holders but the other operational annyances of the view camera will still slow you down. On the plus side, even with the very cheapest view camera and 6x12 back you get perspective control, something that will cost you northwards of $8000 in a Linhof 612 PC outfit (includes one lens, a Schneider 58mm XL that costs $1,213 in a view camera shutter).

With a rotating lens on a 612 camera body, you can get some very interesting photos. The Noblex is the most common example of the breed, producing a 146-degree photo free of distortion and light falloff.

6x17
If it pains you to take more than four pictures on a roll of film, a 6x17 camera is for you. Check my Fuji G617 review for some sample images. The right camera to buy in this size is a used Fuji G617 (the old one without interchangeable lenses). I got mine for $2200 in flawless condition. The things that it really could use are perspective control and the ability to focus closer. What the market has delivered instead are 617 cameras with interchangeable lenses and breathtaking price tags. For the same price, you could get a G617 and a 4x5 or 5x7 view camera system for the times when you needed a different focal length, a closer focus ability, or perspective control.

More

• Internet's biggest, best, and best-archived discussion of medium-format cameras is Medium Format Digest

Inspiration
I'm going to try to keep tossing in photos here that show the advantages of various medium format cameras and image dimensions.

http://www.photo.net/photo/medium-format/choosing

Choosing a Large Format Camera

If you don't know what a view camera does or why you might need one, please read my camera tutorial before trying to wade through this document, which assumes that you already know why you need the perspective control and image quality of a view camera.

Size

I'm going to risk crucifixion by saying that you shouldn't consider a 8x10 view camera unless you are planning to make contact prints. Note that contact printing is how Ansel Adams and Edward Weston made some of their most famous and valuable prints. Without the distortions of the enlarger lens or contrast reduction of enlarger flare (stray light from one portion of the image scattering into another portion), a contact print is a beautiful thing to behold. Nonetheless, if you're too lazy to do it then an 8x10 should be scratched from your shopping list. The cameras are simply too huge. The film is too expensive. You can't get Fuji Quickload film in 8x10 size. The only way to scan 8x10 is with a ruinously expensive drum scanner (i.e., no Kodak PhotoCD). You can't get simple Polaroid film in 8x10 size.

At the other end of the spectrum are medium-format view cameras, such as the Horseman VH 6x9 cm camera. These have the advantages of compactness and roll-film loading ease. However, they are about as cumbersome and slow to operate as a 4x5 camera. You could put a roll film back on a 4x5 camera if you wanted to avoid loading film holders. At the end of the day a medium-format view camera won't give you a beautiful 4x5 sheet of film for your light table. And the resulting negative won't be cheap to scan like a 35mm neg would be. So scratch anything smaller than 4x5 from the list.

Where does that leave us? With 4x5 view camera. If you need a bunch of images scanned, you can get a Kodak PhotoCD made from 4x5 film. You have the widest selection of emulsions in 4x5 size. The latest and best view camera lens designs are intended to cover 4x5.

Staying at Home, Staying with the Car, or Packing into the Bush?

The next big decision that you have to make is whether you are going to

• take pictures at home in a studio
• take pictures on the road but close to the car
• take pictures in the wilderness

If you're going to take pictures at home in the studio, then what you want is a 12 lb. monorail camera with beautifully precise and geared movements. If you're going to travel but stay reasonably close to the car, then you probably want a camera that won't break your arm if you have to carry it 200 yards: a 6 lb. monorail. If you're going to take the camera into the wilderness and trek for 5 hours before setting up for the perfect photo, what you need is a camera that folds up compactly and is also fairly lightweight.

Let's treat each of these situations in turn.

The camera for the studio

My favorite studio camera is the Sinar X. Let's look first at why Sinar and then at why this specific model of Sinar. Suppose that Joe Clueless person looks through a catalog of photographic equipment. After doing extensive research through product literature and by testing some sample cameras and lenses, Joe tells you that Canon, Contax, Leica, Minolta, Nikon, Pentax, and Sigma camera systems are all basically just fine. The usability and final image quality on film are tough to distinguish.

Yet a working photographer knows that only Canon and Nikon make complete professional systems with the full range of lenses, attachments, and accessories that they'd be likely to need. Moreover, those are the only two systems for which they'd have a prayer of renting lenses, attachments, and accessories for a special job.

The view camera world is more or less the same. Leaving through catalogs and, if you're lucky enough to live near a good shop, playing with various view cameras, you would be likely to conclude that they are all the same. This is particularly the case since a view camera is really only a light-tight box. You can use any lens or film back on any view camera. So what difference does the box make?

At least in the United States, the only comprehensive view camera system available is Sinar. It is also the only system for which you can find rental gear. Since it isn't really any more expensive than other brands, there is no reason to ever consider another brand for studio work.

Now that we've settled on Sinar, let's look at what we've got. Every Sinar seems to have little calculator wheels that tell you (1) what aperture you need to get enough depth of field, and (2) at what angle you need to tilt the lens and/or film plane to bring a tabletop into focus via the Scheimpflug Rule. Every Sinar has lots of parts that interchange with other Sinar models. If you start with a cheap lightweight Sinar for use while traveling, you will be able to use all of your extension rails, bellows, etc. on the top-of-the-line studio cameras.

Let's get back now to my recommendation of the specific Sinar X model. Like the $6000 Sinar P2 it has geared and calibrated movements (and sadly, like the Sinar P2, it is a heavy camera). What is good about the Sinar X is that you can buy it for about $3000 at the end of every calendar year when Sinar has a sale. You can get it for pretty close to this price the rest of the year if you're affiliated with a university. Otherwise, budget a little over $4000. What you give up compared to the P2 is the ability to convert to 8x10 without having to buy a whole new rear standard and also the ability to stick a meter probe in the film plane.

The camera for the road

If you're going to stick close to the car but want a more easily luggable camera than the X, I recommend the Sinar F1 or F2. These are about half the weight of the X and start at under $2000, which is a much better deal than the X except at the end of the year.

The camera for the wilderness

I tried to do this with my Linhof Master Technika but it is simply too heavy and, in virtue of its being a view camera, requires too many accessories to take any pictures. The Horseman field cameras have always attracted me because of their impossibly light weight. Wooden field cameras drive me insane because the movements aren't precise and it is tough to even get the standards parallel. Actually, when I think about it, all field cameras inevitably drive me insane because they don't have the movement flexibility to which I became accustomed with my first view camera (a Sinar F2).

Check the comments at the end of this article to see if any other photo.net community members have found nirvana in this area.

Which lenses

Real view camera photographers will tell you that you should buy all your lenses from one company because they will be matched for color and contrast. Unless you're doing catalog photography, I think this is bad advice. First, in a world of digital imaging and color negative film, I don't see why color consistency should be so important. Second, one of the joys of view camera ownership is that you can choose any lens from any manufacturer.

Here are some of my favorite lens ideas:

• the Schneider Super Angulon XL series; these are innovative wide angles introduced with great fanfare in the late-1990s. They are revolutionary in that they cover the full 4x5 frame while going as wide as 47mm (equivalent to a 15mm lens on a Nikon). Personally, I would get a 72mm XL. Don't forget to budget $500 extra for a center filter that corrects for the inevitable wide-angle light falloff in the corners.
• Nikkor AM 210 ED macro lens. This is an apochromatic lens at 1:1 and covers 8x10 easily. It is frighteningly sharp.
• Nikkor T 360mm lens. This is part of the Nikon telephoto series introduced in the 1980s. They have ED glass and, because of their telephoto design, let you take portraits without racking the bellows out to an absurd and usntable degree. Even more interestingly, you can get an extra rear element for the lens and convert it to 500 or 720 mm. Caveat 1: these are big long lenses. If you want a 300 for field use, consider an older 300/9 non-telephoto design. Caveat 2: because the telephoto design puts the nodal point way out in front of the lens, and therefore in front of the lens board, tilts and swings will not work as expected.
• Rodenstock 250mm Imagon. This is a very strange soft-focus lens that covers 4x5. Use it for portraits and landscapes.
• oh yes... a normal lens. The 210 macro will work reasonably well at longer distance so you might as well get a 150. Schneider's APO Symmar and Rodenstock's APO Sironar S are indistinguishable. If you want to get extreme with movements, the Schneider Super Symmar HM 150 is unique.
• finally, for those times when the Super Angulon XL is simply too wide, you need a Schneider Super Symmar XL 120.

A potentially good strategy for saving some money is finding a set of Fuji lenses. These are very similar in quality to Nikon, Rodenstock, and Schneider but were always a bit cheaper and then Fuji withdrew from the American market.

A few other items

If you want to attach your fancy new lenses to your fancy new camera, you need lens boards, one for each lens. Generally it is best to buy the lenses already mounted on boards by a professional camera shop. Otherwise, you will have to invest in a spanner wrench and some brain effort.

To focus a wide angle lens at infinity requires mushing the front and rear standards very close together (about 72mm for a 72mm lens, for example). If you can do it at all, you'll find that the bellows becomes very stiff and it is hard to use the view camera perspective controls. One solution is a recessed lens board that holds the lens back behind the front standard. I don't like recessed boards because they make it hard to adjust aperture and shutter speed. A better solution is the wide-angle or "bag" bellows. These are, well, bags. On a Sinar, you can switch from regular to bag bellows in about 30 seconds. The bellows that are you aren't using becomes a lens hood. It is a very slick system.

To focus a long lens on a close-up object requires a lot of bellows extension. You'll probably need a 6-inch extension rail for your Sinar.

Personally, I find that my photography is improved when I put film behind the rear standard. This isn't so easy with 4x5. The traditional way is to buy a stack of film holders (Rite-Way are the best), a box of film, and a brush or can of compressed air to get the dust off the holders before putting the film in. After you've done this a few times, you'll probably decide that you'd get better results if you did it in total darkness, either by building a special room in your house or by purchasing a PhotoFlex Changing Room or similar tent-like changing bag (Jobo and Calumet sell them also). You put in the film, zip it up, and stick your arms in through elastic sleeves.

After you've loaded film this way for a few years, you decide to buy into the Kodak Readyload system. Kodak packages the film for you in their factory. Each pair of sheets comes in a light-tight dust-free cardboard sleeve. You stick the sleeve into a special Kodak holder and can take pictures almost as easily as with a roll-film camera. The film stays in its sleeve until the lab removes it for development. The system is perfect except for the 20-30% of exposures that are ruined due to light leaks and other system failures.

After you've gotten tired of Kodak's incompetently-designed system, you switch to Fuji Quickload, a system that appears on the surface to be similar to Kodak's. There must be some big difference because I've been using the Fuji system for almost ten years and have never had a single failure. Nor have I ever talked with anyone who has had a problem with Fuji. Nort have I ever talked with anyone who has gotten Kodak Readyload to work reliably. Kodak periodically comes out with a new film holder for Readyload and issues a press release saying "we've fixed Readyload so that it works".

But of course it doesn't.

So the right thing to do is either be a real photographer and take the time to load film holders or use Fuji Quickload and bitch and complain about the limited variety of emulsions available. As of December 1998 you could only get Velvia (ISO 50 slides; delicious but lurid), Astia (ISO 100 slides; delicious), Provia (ISO 100 slides; "the worst slide film ever made" according to one of my friends and I couldn't disagree), and Fujichrome 64T (tungsten slides).

Before putting that film in the rear standard, you might want to check that your camera is pointed at something interesting. For that you'll want a dark cloth that you can drape around the ground glass and your head.

In order to see if your subject is in focus, you need a magnifying loupe. My favorite is the "Toyo 3.6X Groundglass Focusing Magnifier" (about $40), though expensive German loupes lifted from the light table work reasonably well also.

As you're stopping down the lens to the correct aperture and adjusting the Copal shutter, you may wonder whether these settings are correct for the light and your subject's tone. A handheld meter is useful at this point. Real view camera nerds generally use a dedicated spot meter but I prefer the Sekonic L-508 (spot, incident, reflected, weatherproof).

Once your exposure is set, if your subject isn't at infinity you might want to make sure that a bellows extension exposure correction isn't required. For this you need a QuickDisc (free) or Quick Stick (not free).

If you're still not able to nail exposure, or if you're using studio strobes, you'll definitely want a Polaroid 545 back and some Polaroid 4x5 film (about $3 per exposure).

At this point you need a humungoid case to hold everything. The most convenient are those that let your camera hang from its rails. Lightware and Tenba make soft-sided versions of this age-old design. My Lightware case is a persistent source of difficulty and the doesn't seem to be great with support, so I'd personally get a Tenba View 45 case or maybe one of the Sinar-brand cases.

More

• reviews of specific cameras in photo.net
• Large Format threads in the Q&A forum
• Quang-Tuan Luong's comprehensive large-format page
• View Camera Technique; book review
• once you get your camera: the QuickDisc exposure tool
• vendor smut, but comes with interesting MTF diagrams (warning: these are calculated, not measured): http://www.schneideroptics.com/

Inspiration

I'm going to try to keep tossing in photos here that show the advantages of large format photography.

http://www.photo.net/photo/large-format/choosing

Choosing a Digital Camera

We live in strange times. Remember the 1970s when magazines and newspapers had digital compositing systems but word processors weren't widely available? Content originated on typewriters and had to be imported (rekeyed) into digital form. That's where we are in the late 1990s. Most imaging professionals have a computer and software capable of processing digital images. But content originates on film and has to be scanned. So only a tiny percentage of images that people make are amenable to computer processing.

The world of photography will change when most content originates in computer-readable form. That means the world will change when the average person converts from a film-based camera to a digital camera.

Thus before we get into thinking about which digital camera is best, we have to consider whether a film or digital camera is better for a particular application.

How much worse than a film camera is a digital camera?

How much quality do you lose by using a digital camera? Maybe none. In fact, a digital camera is better quality than a film camera in many important respects! The easiest to understand specification is resolution. A 35mm film-based camera will crush any digital camera in the number of good pixels. But maybe you care about color balance under mixed lighting. A digital camera is actually better than a film camera. Maybe you care about scale, the ability of the camera to capture detail in the brightest highlights and darkest shadows of a scene. A cleverly designed digital camera may be much better in this respect than a film-based camera.

The key word in the above sentence is clever. Most digital cameras come from Japanese companies with a lot of engineering experience making imaging pipelines that run from a CCD to an analog video tape (i.e., what is inside a camcorder). They've adapted these pipelines to the new DV camcorders. So why not adapt them to the digital still camera? It is mostly the same thing except you write one frame at a time to some sort of computer memory. The flaw in this argument is that the CCD sensors are capable of much more dynamic range than one can record in an NTSC video signal. There has thus been very little pressure to make the pipeline milk the ultimate in shadow and highlight detail from the sensor. However, if one were to store digital still images with 16 bits per pixel, it would be worth trying to squeeze all the dynamic resolution from the sensor. Cameras like the Nikon D1 and Canon D30 are just the beginnings of the trend away from 8-bit cameras.

Over the next few years, expect to see some interesting digital cameras from non-traditional companies with strong backgrounds in instrumentation (e.g., Hewlett Packard).

Yeah, yeah, but what about resolution?

You need at least 200 pixels-per-inch for photographic quality. So for a 4x6 proof print to stick on the fridge, an 800x1200 image will be fine. For an 11x14 you'll want 2200x2800 (6 megapixels).

Note that the megapixels from a digital camera aren't as good as the megapixels coming from a slide scanner. Slide scanners essentially have three CCDs underneath each pixel, one for red, one for green, one for blue. The array of CCDs in a digital camera is covered by a mosaic of red, green, and blue filters. Thus a digital camera might produce a megapixel of luminance (black and white) information, but only a third as much resolution in the area of color.

The process of mapping those megapixels, each a different color, into a traditional computer RGB format is known as "demosaicing". The quality of the algorithm used to demosaic will affect the final image quality. This is yet another reason not to judge cameras by specifications alone.

To show that you can't judge an image by the numbers, compare the following:

• 1600x1200 image from Canon S100, unaltered, maximum quality
• 2048x1536 image from Canon G1, unaltered, maximum quality
• 1536x1024 PhotoCD scan from a 35mm ISO 100 slide film original
• 1024x1024 ProPhotoCD scan from a 6x6cm original slide (section of a 1536x1024 scan)
• 1300x1024 ProPhotoCD scan from a 4x5 inch original slide (section of a 1536x1024 scan)

The bottom line for us here at photo.net is that we're not satisfied with the quality of the pixels as they come out of any digital camera. For Web (screen) presentation we reduce the image by 2X and are much happier with the resulting quality.

$4,000 or $500 and not much in between

Conventional marketing wisdom has it that there are only two types of camera consumers: (1) the average person who just wants to push the button, and (2) the professional photographer who needs control and will pay virtually any price. Thus, if you want to control exposure, change lenses, use the lenses from your existing Canon or Nikon 35mm SLR, expect to pay $2500-4,000. Part of the reason that these cameras cost so much is that a 35mm camera lens paints an image 24 x 36mm in size. Digital camera sensors are essentially computer chips. The larger the computer chip, the more likely it is not to work. This is because a single flaw in the silicon wafer may ruin a chip. The larger a chip, the more likely it is to enclose a random flaw in the wafer. Very expensive chips such as Intel Pentiums are usually no larger than 20mm square and these have the benefit of huge manufacturing volumes and enormous capital investment. Making a flawless 24 x 36mm chip in small quantities is going to result in enormous costs.

What should engineers do? Swing to the opposite end of the spectrum. Make a physically very small sensor. A small sensor can be covered by the image coming out the back of a small lens. This makes it tough to build a true wide-angle lens but easy and cheap to build a mid-tele zoom. Most consumers will be grateful that they've not been burdened with excessive weight, size, and cost.

How will it change your photography?

In "Choosing a Medium Format Camera", I allude to the steps in getting an image up onto the wall:

• picking a subject
• picking a place to stand and a lens (perspective)
• deciding whether to compose vertically or horizontally
• deciding whether an image is good enough to frame
• choosing a frame molding shape
• choosing a frame material
• choosing a mat size
• choosing a mat color

and explain my preference for the 6x6 cm square format because it lets me defer the vertical/horizontal decision until I'm comfortably ensconced at home in front of the light table.

Digital cameras not only force you to make all the choices that you have to make with a 35mm camera, but you also have to edit in real-time. You can't run off to Italy for two months, come back with 60 rolls of film, let them sit in your files for another two months, then start to pick the gems.

Essentially film comes with its own built-in write-once storage medium for the bits that it records. Digital cameras have limited storage space. If you're traveling, you'll have to spend every night figuring out which pictures are worth preserving on a laptop computer's hard drive. The really great ones you'll have to make sure that you e-mail back home or risk losing them if the laptop is damaged or stolen.

Consider the picture at right, the chess master in Harvard Square, taken with an old manual Nikon. Had I been forced to edit this in real-time, I'd probably have tossed it. Yet upon close inspection, the upper-right corner of the frame reveals a contorted photographer! A perfect image for photo.net! I didn't really notice it until many months after I took the picture.

Guide for Shoppers

Here are some reasonable choices:

• The Canon S100 (Digital ELPH) is a remarkably small camera that works about as well as any other $600 camera. For $200 you can get a Canon-brand underwater housing for the machine. I've tested the camera and the housing and both work very well, though the image quality is very poor in low light unless you use the built-in flash. Also see the Sony Cybershot DSC-S70.
• The Canon G1 and Nikon 995 are the best mid-priced cameras if you want to use off-camera flash. They can control the full range of Canon and Nikon (respectively) strobe equipment.
• The Olympus E-10, which started at $2000 in the fall of 2000, is a very nicely engineered single-lens reflex (SLR) digital camera with a purpose-designed lens built in. One nice thing about non-interchangeable lenses is that it keeps dust off the sensor.
• If you're got a big line of Nikon F-mount lenses, the Nikon D1 and Fuji S1 are nice digital SLRs. If you're bought into the Canon EOS line, the D30 is the best choice.

Displaying Digital Images

Once you get those images on your hard disk, you'll probably want to either

• upload them into the photo.net photodb system
• print them out using a color printer and hang them on a wall or
• read Philip and Alex's Guide to Web Publishing and build a collaborative Web site based around your photos

More

reviews of specific cameras in photo.net (doomed to be pathetically out of date)

• Digital Imaging threads in the Q&A forum

http://www.photo.net/photo/digital/choosing