In article <01IHPAXRF84Y8Y5ND6 at IRRI.CGNET.COM>, E.REGALADO at CGNET.COM
>>> 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
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?
The problem with being on the cutting edge is that you occasionally get
sliced from time to time....