situations with little light and the other half are dedicated for situations with normal and bright light, hence increasing the ‘dynamic range’ of the sensor. However, for all but the ‘maximum dynamic range’ settings only half of the pixels are used, resulting in 6 million effective pixels. It allows the user to take images in a variety of modes: ‘maximum dynamic range’, ‘normal’, ‘film simulation 1’ and ‘film simulation 2’. Images in all modes were taken and individually scored for color reproducibility. The best images were taken in ‘maximum dynamic range’ and these were subsequently used.
In contrast to its predecessors (Fujifilm S 1 Pro and S
2 Pro), this camera works in manual mode only when using a macro-speed-light and the settings of the flash have to be changed between intra- and extra-oral views. The camera is therefore not TTL when using the SB29S as flash unit (Nikon Corp., Tokyo, Japan). The camera does, however, allow true TTL metering when combined with the SigmaH EM-140 DG iTTL ring-flash (Sigma Corp., Kanagawa, Japan). The Fujifilm S 3 Pro and the Nikon D100 are based on the Nikon F80 body; the manufacturers specifications for the viewfinder are virtually identical and were therefore ranked identical for the viewfinder quality.
Color reproducibility was very close to the original model, the images appeared slightly redder on the gums, and the teeth had a slightly blue tinge.
The camera was tested with a 60 mm Nikkor macro-lens.
Konica-Minolta 7D (Konica-Minolta Holdings Inc., Tokyo, Japan). The exposures of this camera were inconsistent when taking intra- and extra-oral photographs in terms of lighting. The inconsistency was caused by the flash, which allowed exposures before full recharge. For assessment of quality of photographs only correctly exposed images were allowed.
The color of the images appeared to put more weight on reds than the model, all colors were stronger than the original object.
Handling characteristics were very complex: in man- ufacturers auto-setting (P) the aperture did not allow for adequate depth of field. When changing to aperture priority and f522, the macro-flash had to be separately adjusted as otherwise underexposure occurred. When changing to extra-oral photography both camera and flash-settings had to be readjusted. The viewfinder was the second largest, but brightest of all cameras tested. The Konica-Minolta R 1200 Macro flash was the second slowest to recharge, taking 8 seconds.
Nikon D100, D70s and D50 (Nikon Corp. Tokyo, Japan). All three cameras were similar regarding their
handling characteristics: they work in manual mode only when using a speed-light and both settings (camera and flash) had to be adjusted between intra- and extra- oral views. The cameras therefore do not use TTL metering when using a macro-speed-light. All cameras have approximately 6 million pixels.
The D100 had one of the smallest viewfinders, which was also not particularly bright. The D100 images were consistently scored closest to the original model amongst all cameras, tending slightly towards orange.
The D70 images were slightly lighter than the D100 images, but equally acceptable.
The D50 has the smallest and darkest viewfinder of all tested cameras and the D70s had the second smallest and dimmest viewfinder. The D50 images appeared to put more emphasis on the red and blue colors, thereby appearing more vivid for teeth and gums.
All three cameras were tested with a 60 mm Nikkor macro-lens and a Nikon SB29S macro-speed-light. The latter had the fastest recharging flash in the series (3 seconds).
Interestingly, all three cameras worked well when using the SigmaH EM-140 DG iTTL ring – flash. However, this was not scored as there are too many camera/lens/macro-flash permutations between manu- facturers available.
Olympus E1 and E300 (Olympus Corp., Tokyo. Japan). The two Olympus cameras are virtually identical in their handling characteristics. Intra-oral photography at a magnification of 1:2 on P setting gave consistently overexposed images. However, once the camera was adjusted to aperture priority and f522, both cameras took good images regarding the exposure and depth of field. No changes were necessary when changing between intra- and extra-oral photography. In other words the Olympus Ring-Flash was powerful enough to take extra-oral images at an aperture of f522. Also, the camera turns the flash unit automatically on and off. The Olympus E1 is a professional camera with a magnesium alloy body, is environmentally sealed and is a 5 million pixel camera. The viewfinder is somewhat bigger and brighter than the one of the E300, but both were in mid range compared with the other cameras. The E300 has a less rugged design and has 8 million pixels.
The E1 took slightly darker images than the E300, but both produced slightly bluer images than the original.
The flash used was the SRF-11 and the lens was a 50 mm ED macro-lens, both Olympus. The flash recharge time was 4 seconds (medium range).