Konica Minolta SLR - Manual (Page 5)

was tested with new single-use standard AA batteries
(Duracell, NVSA Belgium).
Results
A summary of the results is presented in Table 2.
Color fidelity
For these results please refer to the section on individual
cameras in Table 2. All images were taken in JPEG mode.
User friendliness
Unfortunately, no camera produced satisfactory results in
the factory default ‘automatic’ mode. This is because the
manufacturers assume that the camera will be used for
normal photography and the ‘factory default settings’
reflect this: the aperture will be programed to be
comparatively open in order to give the flash unit an
increased range. Therefore, all cameras had to be adjusted
at least once (initially) before taking satisfactory images.
Quality of the viewfinder: Inter-observer
reproducibility
Quality and size of the viewfinders were scored with
100% consistency between the observers.
Quality of the macro-flash
Recharge times varied considerably and some of the
units were true ‘ring-flash’ units (Canon), whilst others
were more like ‘close range dual flash units’ (Nikon).
However, there was no discernible difference regarding
the homogeneity of the light.
Cameras
In the next section cameras will be discussed in
alphabetical order according to manufacturer:
Canon EOS 350 D and EOS 20 D (Canon Inc., Tokyo,
Japan).
The Canon EOS 350 D has 8 million pixels
and has a plastic body. The camera has a small
viewfinder (7th place), which is not particularly bright
(6th). Handling characteristics are essentially identical
to the EOS 20 D (please see below).
The EOS 20 D, which has 8 million pixels, has a sturdy
magnesium-alloy body. The size and brightness of the
viewfinders were amongst the best (3rd and 2nd place,
respectively).
After initially setting both cameras to aperture priority
(f522) a second adjustment had to be made to allow
for adequate flash synchronization in this mode.
Unfortunately, the flash synchronization mode is hidden
in one of the sub-menus. However, once this was set up,
only the aperture had to be adjusted between intra- and
extra-oral views.
Both cameras were quite different in terms of color
reproducibility: the images of the canon EOS 20 D
appeared slightly blue on teeth and gums, and the EOS
350 D slightly red on gums but blue on the teeth, when
compared with the original model.
For both cameras the Canon MR-14 EX macro-flash
was used, which had a comparatively slow recharge time
(6 s) for the 100 mm Canon macro-lens.
Fujifilm S 3 Pro (Fujifilm Corp., Tokyo, Japan). This
camera is relatively new and has a variety of features,
which are different from all the other cameras tested. It
has ‘12 million’ pixels, of which half are dedicated for
Journal
of
Or
thod
ontics
JOR
3338.3d
11/7/0
6
19
:17:40
The
Charlesworth
Group
,
Wakefield
+44(0)1924
369598
-
Rev
7.51n/W
(Jan
20
2003)
Table 2 Test results
Body
Canon
EOS
350D Canon
EOS
20D
Fujifilm
S3Pro
Konica -
Minolta
7D
Nikon
D100 Nikon
D70 Nikon
D50 Olympus
E1 Olympus
E300 Pentax
*ist DS
Macro - Lens 100 mm 100 mm 60 mm
Nikkor 100 mm 60 mm
Nikkor 60 mm
Nikkor 60 mm
Nikkor ED 50 mm ED 50 mm 100 mm
Flash MR-14 EX MR-14 EX SB 29S R 1200 SB 29S SB 29S SB 29S SRF - 11 SRF - 11 AF 140 C
Time for Recharge
(seconds) 6 6 no more
than 3 8 no more
than 3 no more
than 3 no more
than 3 4 4 9
Ranking Viewfinder
Size 7 3 6 2 6 8 9 4 5 1
Ranking Viewfinder
Brightness 6 2 7 1 7 8 6 3 5 4
Change of settings
between intra and
extra-oral photographs aperture aperture aperture
and flash aperture
and flash aperture
and flash aperture
and flash aperture
and flash nil nil aperture
JO September 2006 Features Section Comparison of digital SLR cameras 5