In article <01IHPAXRF84Y8Y5ND6 at IRRI.CGNET.COM>, E.REGALADO at CGNET.COM
writes
>>> Could anyone suggest a good non-Polaroid using camera? We are doing
>PCR fingerprints of bacteria and we'd like to do away with Polaroid films
>if we could find a camera that gives images that are as good as polaroids.
>I have been looking at digital cameras and video cameras but I don't know
>if these are good replacements and which is best to buy. We'd like
>to hear from someone who has used these cameras and have compared them.
>We've checked the Digital Science EDAS system of Kodak; it's expensive
>but is it good? is there another system that's as good if not better but
>less expensive?
>Thanks,
>Ellen Regalado
>
The problem at the moment is that affordable CCD cameras are only 640 x
480 pixels (or slightly more on the Kodak). It's the kind of difference
between video cards 800x 600 is better than 640 x 480 and neither have
the same resoloution as a camera. For gel photos we use a 640 x 480 CCD
for lab books but for literature we use 35mm film. 640 x 480 captured
using a frame grabber card prints quite nicely on cheap 600dpi lasers ie
HP Laserjet 5L or Panasonic GDI KX6300.
For say fluorescent colour images I don't think you can beat the
cheapness of the digital cameras but who needs coloured agarose gels?
Duncan
--
The problem with being on the cutting edge is that you occasionally get
sliced from time to time....
Duncan Clark
DNAmp Ltd.
TEl/FAX 01252376288
http://www.dnamp.comhttp://www.genesys.demon.co.uk
