>When you use a relatively low resolution digital camera, the only way to
>obtain a picture of a small object with decent resolution is to get the lens
>extremely close to the object. However, one of the advantages of a very high
>resolution camera (5 mp) is that you can shoot small objects from several
>inches away, so that the object occupies only a small portion of the viewing
>area, then crop the photo and enlarge it, resulting in a full-size image
>which still has excellent resolution. This avoids the depth of field
>problems, lighting problems, and distortion problems inherent in shooting at
>a miminal focal distance.

I hadn't thought of that, obvious though it should be! But will it
work for micros?

I have a dilemma as to what type of camera to look at. I find a
5.24Mp Sony (other brands tend to cost somewhat less) is as much as I
can "afford"; more resolution than this and prices skyrocket, eg a
7.5Mp.

But there are two basic types... the SLR-lookalikes and the pocket.

The former are the likes of the Sony Cybershot DSC-F717 (starting at
$599US) and Mavica MVC-CD500 (from $505); these are too bulky for
convenience.

The latter compact type eg  the Cybershot DSC-V1 (from $519) are
convenient, but will one of these do as good a job? One advantage of
these little beasties is that a magnifying lens can easily be used to
shoot micros; possibly not so easy with the wide elements of the
SLR-style cameras.

None of these low-end cameras have interchangable lenses, but I'm not
going to need one of those; what I need is a camera which will take
images of cars and shells; large telephoto and wide-angle not needed.

CD versus sticks?

Opinions?
--
Andrew Grebneff
Dunedin, New Zealand
64 (3) 473-8863
<[log in to unmask]>
Fossil preparator
Seashell, Macintosh & VW/Toyota van nut
I want your sinistral gastropods!
-----------------------
Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
A: Why is top posting frowned upon?