Konica Minolta SLR manual Methods, Ease of use, Quality of the photographs Color-fidelity

		JO September 2006
			Pentax *ist	DS	6	858		AF 140 C	14	515	100 mm	551	1324
								SRF - 11			ED 50 mm
			Olympus	E300	8	919			11	662		453	1688
				Olympus E1	5	1226		SRF - 11	11	662	ED 50 mm	453	1768
											60 mm Nikkor
				Nikon D50	6	746		SB 29S	11	466		539	1605
	Rev 7.51n/W (Jan 20 2003)			Nikon D70s	6	858		SB 29S	11	466	60 mm Nikkor	539	1660
19:17:05				Nikon D100	6	1348		SB 29S	11	466	60 mm Nikkor	539	1765
Journal of Orthodontics JOR3338.3d 11/7/06	The Charlesworth Group, Wakefield +44(0)1924 369598 -		Konica -	Minolta 7D
					Meagpixels (rounded figure) 8 8 126	Body (UK list price without 770 1243 2206 1409	VAT in Euro)	FlashMR-14 EX MR-14 EX SB 29S R 1200	Guide number14 14 1112	Macro Speed-light (UK list price 490 490 466490	without VAT in Euro) Macro - Lens100 mm 100 mm 60 mm Nikkor 100 mm	Macro - Lens (UK list price 588 588 539919	without VAT in Euro) Unit - Weight (in grams inclusive 1612 1874 1891 2329 batteries)
				Fujifilm S3Pro
			Canon EOS	20D
		Table 1 Cameras tested and specifications	Canon EOS	350D
				Body

Features Section Comparison of digital SLR cameras 3

Pentax only produced the 100 mm macro-lens at the time of testing,); Olympus only produces a 50 mm macro-lens, which takes magnification differences between analogue and digital formats into account. The lenses chosen for this study were kept as close as possible to a 100 mm equivalent (for 36 mm analogue film). Nikon and Fujifilm use a small sensor, which does not fill the 36 mm film-area. A magnification factor of approximately 1.5 applies. This magnification factor was adjusted by choosing a 60 mm macro-lens for those cameras.

Methods

Ease of use

All cameras were initially set on automatic mode (factory preset); with the flash turned on. The intra-oral exposures were taken at approximately 1:2 magnifica- tion. The aperture selected by the camera was recorded and checked for suitability, particularly depth of field. Homogeneity of illumination was checked for suitability by assessing shadows on the image. There is a reverse relationship between the f-setting and the aperture: the larger the number of the f-setting the smaller the aperture and the larger the depth of field. These settings were found to be too small for all cameras (the aperture was too large, giving poor depth of field) and were therefore changed to aperture priority mode; the aperture was closed to at least f522, which gives good depth of field (Figure 2). The camera was then used for extra-oral photography and the settings changed again until appropriate, in this case an aperture of at least f58. The number of changes necessary between the settings was recorded. The camera was only considered metering ‘through the lens’ (TTL) if the flash settings did not need to be changed.

Quality of the photographs: Color-fidelity

For consistency, intra-oral photographs (front, right and left lateral views) were simulated by taking pictures of a demonstration-model (Ormco), against a green background (Figure 3). A non-clinical method was preferred to taking images of a patient: the 10 cameras were not all available at the same time and changes in oral hygiene may have influenced color consistency over time. Even if all cameras had been tested on one patient on one occasion the discomfort would have been considerable. The white balance selection was auto for all cameras. The images were subsequently downloaded on a ‘SONY VAIO’ (Sony Corporation, Japan) computer. The computer screen was adjusted to project