And you planned to use it mainly for hi-res backdrops for Poser and also for photo-real textures for Poser and Bryce, what would you look for in a camera? For example, is the $400 difference between 4 and 5 mega pixels justified? Do I need that many mega pixels to begin with? Brands worthy of recommendation? Unworthy? Data storage considerations?????

you know, I have a Samsung Digimax 200 with 2,1 Megapixels, and it takes VERY large and crisp images, so in my opinion, you don't need a high end camera to make good pigtures :o)

i have a fujifilm finepix 4900z and i love the thing..its my 3rd digital camera and the first good enough to print and have the same quality (or as near as) as a proper photograph.....heres an image took with it http://poserworld.com/stevePublicPrvws/a80s.jpg it was originally 2400x1800 and the camera was set at low quality, it was then resized and compressed again at 80% with ACDSee http://poserworld.com/stevePublicPrvws/a80s.jpg ...i think its a 4mp camera and takes smart media (the other takes flash media and theres not much in it cost or otherwise as far as i can see), it has 6x optical zoom and something digital zoom but ignore that as its a waste of time....it can be used fully auto or like an SLR..bad points are it comes with a small card, special batteries are needed and its SLR digital so your looking at a digital image in the viewfinder which isn't as clear as true SLR, you can use the monitor but autofocus has never failed yet so the view finder is ok.....Steve

Pat, ... I would talk to Danny Low. As a photographer with his own darkroom, you know that he read ALL the magazines and tested everything from the bottom up before purchase. (I'm pretty sure that this is his second one, too.) He downloads directly from the digital to his iBook, so he is familiar with the software you'd be using. :) If you need contact info, LMK, but he should be in the Fan Directory. Carolly

Attached Link: http://www.dpreview.com/

Link has excellent advice and reviews, too many cameras to choose from....

I bought a Canon S-40 for work and we were very pleased with it. 4 megapixel, 3X optical zoom. You should look for features like good optical zoom,at least 3X. At least 3 megapixel and manual over-rides for exposure, speed(ASA rating) and white balance.

The best advice I can give is to be sure to get an SLR camera, not something with a built-in lens. For doing poser work you can not have such a thing as too many pixels. Good hi-res poser texture files these days are 9 to 16 megapixels (3000 to 4000 px square). You also need macro capability, and a sharp picture overall. I've tried a lot of "all-in-one" compact digital cameras, and none has ever really impressed me. Small lenses on the compact cameras are compromised in so many ways... high f-stop, severe barrel distortions, overall poor sharpness, to name just a few. I have one all-in-one camera (Nikon 950) and it's great for it's portability and price, but the image quality leaves a lot to be desired. It's not good enough for doing Poser textures for profit. For some reason it captures grey areas as a dithered collection of rainbow colored pixels, rather an grey. It doesn't take very sharp photos either, relatively speaking. A long visit to dpreview.com is certainly in order, no mater what range of cameras you decide on. I'm very happy with the Canon D60, but my choice was made much easier by the fact that I already had a Canon lens collection for my Elan 35mm. I'm sure Nikon's SLR digital offerings are similar, and worth checking out especially if you already have a Nikon 35mm SLR. -Adam

I have the Kodak DX4900 4 meg pixel I just bought and I have Sony Mavica MVC-CD1000. The new Kodak will shoot Poster size photos.I really like this small. The great thing about Sony is it burns the photos to cd on camera.

Attached Link: http://www.schlabber.org/walls/walls.html

I have a Casio QV 4000 with finally a lot of equipment ... that's a 4,1 MegaPixel Camera with the same objective than the Canon G2 (who won a lot of comparisms) The good: You got a very good 4,1 Megapix - Cam for the price that does fantastic images from outside objects ... the bad: If the light is bad, the camera is not so good ... but I can live with that because my textures are mostly photographed with good lighting and mostly the walls don't run away so soon ... Consider that it is not done with ONLY the camera ... You also need a good standing tripod (that's a must) and this and that additional lense - maybe some more memory - cards. The tele (from Canon) I bought is more usefull than the wide-angle (also Canon) because all wideangle stretches the images - not good for a texture - great for landscapes. By using additional lenses you might need an additional flashlight. If you're planing to photograph walls etc you might also use a good photobag because you can't carry the wall to your equipment - you have to take the camera to the wall ... and yeah - also some additional batteries etc. etc. ... So - to summon it all up ...: My camera costs around $ 600 (used through ebay) - together with the whole equipment it cost around $ 1200 (if I only count the usefull equipment) I would say you should focus most on the objective - that's the most important part - Minoltas mostly fade a little bit to red (saw that on the Dimage 5 from a friend) - a changeable objective is great - but not effortable for hobby only ... good luck ... Some usefull links: http://www.dpreview.com if you're speaking german - go here: http://www.digitalkamera.de the link leads to some images from walls I took with that camera ... please be carefull - the images are huge - although they are compressed to jpg's

Attached Link: http://www.lizardtech.com/

I just got the Toshiba PDR 3300 (3.2 mpix) with a discount from that class action suit they had last year. It takes pictures at 2048 x 1536 x 72dpi and the only thing I noticed was that in low lighting it gets some pixel distortion. Haven't seen any freeware proggys that fix this very well, but if you have adequate light, you're ok. As for making the image larger, say 4000x4000x600, photoshop doesn't do a great job there either but I'm told that a plugin "general fractal" from the site above will do an excellant job of increasing the resolution and even cook your breakfast for you. The $150 price is cheaper than your $400 upgrade price.

More megapixels , More zoom , More lux. having one of the lowest resolution digital camera on the market, I would want all of the above. I still dream of the days before a thief stole my Olympus OM1 every timr I use it. For hi res work you need the best. You will pay more for it. That's just the way it is. - The Kodak system looks good to me - next year.

Attached Link: http://www.dcresource.com/

Another good site for reviews. I have a Canon PowerShot S200 & it's great. Terrific picture quality (no purple fringing) and fantastic software bundle. You can hook it up to your computer & operate it from there if you want, including zoom, white balance, exposure compensation etc. The size of image is only 2mpixles though & it's only 2X zoom. If I were to buy another I'd get the S330 or better yet the G2 for 4mgpxles & lens options. If that's too pricy consider the S40.

Fuji S602 Zoom. Wonderful camera!

When I was playing around with 35 mm lenses I found the best lense quality to be in order(best at top): 1) Hassleblad(sp)(yeah like I'm that good) 2) Nikon(really didn't notice too much difference from Oly.) 3) Olympus(had one) 4) Cannon(had one) 100) everything else. Including minolta(got one) After Nikon you were getting out of the professional range -after cannon you were getting out of the semi professional range. So before you buy, consider lense quality. It should be equivalent to Cannon or better.

I' bought one of the Sony 5 Megapixel camers, the F707, and I'm very happy with it. In spite of what is said above, don't even think about a digital camera that takes 35 mm lenses unless you 1> Have a lot of those lenes already, 2> Like spending $2000+, and 3> like toteing around a heavier camera (35mm lenses are much bigger and heavier than the actuall digital "film" needs). Anyway, let me say the Sony doesn't quite measure up to my old Olympus OM1, but it they are getting "good enough" for a lot of uses. The Sony has one big plus, a battery that talks to the camera and gives you (to the minute) how much charge is left info. The lens quality is pretty good, I wish it went a little more into wide angle though.

Jim, All I was trying to do is get a fix on the relative quality of lenses whether fixed or bayonet. As my efforts were well before digital cameras so that's how I related to the topic. You had an OM1 too eh? I loved mine - best camera I ever had. I wish I had one of those slide scanners so I could get some of my slides into digital form. I even got into the darkroom thing because of the OM1 - 'til it got too expensive. That sony You mentioned sounds like the ticket - If you can even mention it in the same sentance as the Olympus It's gotta be good. What price range are we talking about? They make digital cameras that accept a 35mm bayonett lense now ? cool! When the price comes down, macro city here I come!!! Thanks for the information Jim, - TJ (bikermouse)

The Sony actually has a Carl Zeiss lens, you don't see too many digital camers with names on the lens other than the maker! I think I paid about $625 for the Sony, you might want to look in www.streetprices.com. Incidently, I only paid $125 for my second OM1 body, brand new, many years ago, worth a lot more than that now! I took a photography course at the college where I work, first and only time I did all the darkroom stuff, we only did B&W but it was a lot of fun! The school supplied all the chemicals, we only had to buy paper and film, I think I shot about 40 rolls of Tri-X and a couple rolls of Infrared.

Only problem with SOny is the darn proprietary memory stick. Seems they would have learned their lesson with Beta VCRs...

Jim, I bow to your superior Knowledge - I forgot about Zeiss. That is a good quailty lens manufacturer from what I have heard - I think almost but not quite as good as Olympus If I remember right. That's the trouble with teaching yourself. Infrared. I would have loved to try that but too late, I'm living in an apartment now. I don't remember what I paid for my OM1 but $150.00 sounds like it was in the right range for the body. 600-700 sounds like a good deal for what you're getting. The memory card deal sounds like a drawback, but the OM1 had proprietary "feature" cards. "You takes your choice and you pays your price" as my dad used to say. Thanks for the information, - TJ