With an overabundance of digital cameras on the market, it can be quite a daunting task to find one that best fits your firm's needs. In this thorough investigation of some cost effective, high-grade digital cameras, one will find that the most expensive and complicated cameras may not produce the sharpest images.

I recently needed to purchase a new, higher resolution compact digital camera. Having been disappointed by the image quality of some earlier purchases made solely on the basis of published reviews, I made my own tests this time, personally printing and comparing identical 20"x24" prints made by both well-established models and some of the newest mid-range cameras available from major vendors with a reputation for consistent quality.

I made very large prints to determine overall image quality because photographic prints are usually the ultimate result of most photographic efforts and small prints are not a good indicator of what will or will not look good in front of a jury. Almost any digital camera's images can look good on a computer screen or on 4"x6" snapshot paper but often fail abysmally when enlarged beyond letter size paper.

Not trusting my own observations as a sole guide, I conducted a thoroughly non-random and unscientific survey of twelve other people, including co-workers, my spouse Terese Kashi and my twelve-year old step-daughter Rachel Lee Amos. Opinions were generally quite consistent.

What surprised me were the consensus opinions. The bulkiest and most expensive, complicated digital SLR cameras generally did not produce the sharpest nor most pleasing results. I'll tell you why below.

Readers of our companion publication Law Practice Today may recall a series of 2006 articles in which I discussed basic digital photography concepts and how to authenticate digital photographs for evidentiary purposes. The general concepts set forth in those articles remain quite current and the reader is referred to them for a detailed discussion of fundamental digital photography concepts and techniques that we need not repeat them here. Instead, this article cuts to the chase and evaluates some cost-effective high grade digital cameras that you might find useful as a litigator.

Testing Method

I downloaded identical high sharpness photographs of a brick church from the camera test archives of www.dcresource.com, one of the most highly regarded digital camera review web sites and printed each of the digital files without any post-processing and exactly as posted as 20'x24" color prints, using an HP DesignJet 130 six color printer. I decided to base my comparison upon very large full color prints for several reasons: As litigators, we need large prints to introduce into evidence for the trier of fact's consideration even if we also digitally /project photos on to a screen during trial. You will need large photographs for the jury to take into the jury room during deliberations. If you plan to do fine art photography, your end result is necessarily a high quality print. Finally, when you print out an image using modern printer software, the software often corrects camera noise (digital graininess) and other image problems, thus minimizing the impact of noisy sensors as a purchasing consideration. I used 20"x24" both as a matter of convenience and also because it is the minimum size that I would considerable acceptable as a jury exhibit when viewed at a distance from the jury box. Realistically, 24"x36" or larger prints would be better when viewed at a distance but would be awkward to handle in the jury room or by the Court in chambers.

Both Digital Camera Resource and Imaging-Resource provide a gallery of identical photos taken by each reviewed camera and allow you to download the full-sized file of each comparison negative so that you can print it and examine it at your leisure. Imaging-Resource goes one step further, allowing side by side comparison of identical sample photos made by two different cameras. If you use their side by side comparison feature, then be sure to download the full-sized file and compare the enlarged images. Short of making a lot of identical 20"x24" prints, this is probably the best way to evaluate the default image quality of any digital camera.

I've included a resized example of the DC Resource test image that I used for each camera. This particular photograph was made with a Kodak P880 but the other comparison photographs were made under very similar lighting at a similar wide angle zoom setting. If you conduct your own evaluations of this downloadable sample image, then I suggest that you closely examine the brickwork, clock hands, trees, gilded scroll work, marble statue detailing, steeple top, and darker portions of the church windows for sharpness and the light/shadow edges of the white concrete windows in the upper right corner for evidence of green and purple color fringing. Look for any other areas that seem to show anomalous color, such as the top of the front door steps. Also, stand back a few feet from a large print and evaluate your overall impression of color balance and to extent to which you find the overall presentation generally pleasing.

Desirable Features

1. The sharpest possible lens, first and foremost. Coupling a high quality sensor with a mediocre lens is a total waste. Be aware that high zoom ratio lenses ( 6X zoom or greater) tend to be inherently less sharp because it's very costly and difficult to optimize optical performance over such a wide magnification range. Zoom lenses using manually turned zoom rings are preferable to electrically operated zoom lenses for a number of reasons including longer battery life, faster start-up, and more precise framing.
2. A low-noise sensor that can record at higher ISO sensitivities without objectionable noise. All things being equal, it's nice but not crucial to be able to shoot without a flash under low light situations. SLR cameras such as the Nikon D80 and Canon Rebel EOS400 use larger sensors that usually work much better under low light conditions. All other matters being equal, a large format sensor is usually better in low light situations.
3. Decent and balanced resolution. The sheer number of megapixels is a relatively meaningless measure of ultimate quality - very high megapixel counts are often driven more by marketing than by engineering. Beware of any 20 year old camera salesman that tells you that one camera is inherently better because its sensor contains more megapixels. Given the small 1/1.8" or smaller sensors found in almost all non-professional cameras, cramming more megapixels into the same area often results in objectionable noise levels that can negate any marginal resolution increase. A good six megapixel ( 6 MP) sensor coupled with a very good lens can produce gallery quality photos that are adequately sharp when enlarged to 20"x24", even under close examination. Conversely, some 9 MP and 10 MP cameras exhibit lower sharpness either due to poor quality lenses or noisy sensors. A good 8 MP sensor and very high grade lens is often an excellent compromise.
4. Excellent automatic color balance with manual color balance options.
5. RAW file format and low compression "superfine" JPEG recording options.
   1. Regular JPEG files are heavily compressed to reduce file sizes, something that I find rather archaic now that you can buy a 200 gigabyte hard disk for $100 or so. File compression is the enemy of photographic quality, resulting in lower resolution, blown out highlights without any detail, and reduced color fidelity. RAW file formats will usually produce optimum photo quality.
   2. Totally uncompressed RAW file formats that record the total data sensor data are optimum both photographically and also as a means of later authenticating digital images for evidentiary purposes. RAW format files not only potentially produce the sharpest possible images after later processing with your computer but, compared to JPEG files, can also be more completely corrected for many photographic parameters including proper color balance, noise reduction, contrast control, highlight detail, etc.
   3. No entry level consumer cameras and relatively few mid-range digital cameras include the ability to save files in a RAW format. Adobe Photoshop CS2, a high end professional photo editing suite, or Photoshop Elements 5, a more than adequate "lite" version of Photoshop CS2, are an excellent way to open, correct and work with RAW format files from almost all generally available cameras with a RAW file option.
6. A live "histogram", a type of display that shows the distribution of bright and dark areas and that can help you optimize your exposure. Properly used, a live histogram is one of the best ways to optimally adjust exposure to a particular situation.
7. Both an optical viewfinder and large, bright LCD display. Look for cameras that include an optical viewfinder in addition to the LCD display on back. An optical viewfinder is often handier when you need to shoot quickly or under low light conditions. A lot of people who first learned using 35 mm film cameras will find an optical viewfinder more natural and comfortable. Look for one with diopter correction to compensate for your own eyesight.
8. Easy exposure bracketing, a setting that causes the camera to take three or more shots at different exposures and in rapid succession. This in handy when you are not sure about the correct exposure because of unusual or difficult lighting conditions that may fool a camera's automatic exposure. Professional photographers traditionally shot a lot of film to be sure that they had at least one good exposure. It's a lot less expensive and a lot easier to take this precaution with a digital camera.
9. Both reliable automatic operation and also easily operated manual over-ride exposure options. You really need programmable compensation (P) and manual exposure (M) modes as your abilities progress, particularly if you run into situations that can fool purely automatic exposure modes.
10. A decent quality VGA movie mode - often, we only need a few short clips for evidentiary purposes and a digital camera is often the most convenient and useful way to get these.
11. Proper zoom range - If you're going to do a lot of indoor or real estate photographs, then you'll need a camera what includes very wide angle capability, basically the 35 mm film camera equivalent of a 24mm to 28mm wide angle lens. If you're planning to use a camera for surveillance, then you'll need a camera whose zoom range includes very high magnification at the telephoto end, on the order of a 400 mm equivalent lens. "Digital zoom" is a scam - turn it off to avoid degraded images.
12. Adequate "scene" modes" - some lighting conditions, such as bright sun on snow or theater lighting are inherently tricky. Good scene modes will automatically set your camera to whatever the manufacturer has found to be optimum under that specific circumstances. These are very helpful for amateurs and handy for experienced photographers as well.
13. External flash capability - either the traditional "X synch" output or a hot shoe for a programmable flash designed for that particular camera. Built-in flash is usually really anemic and can't reliably reach beyond about 10 feet or so. Sooner or later, you will want a more powerful and sophisticated external flash unit, so you'll need a camera that can work with an external electronic flash.
14. Fast startup and operation are nice but probably not crucial under most legal evidentiary circumstances. If you really need to be able to shoot photos really quickly, then you probably need to hire a professional anyway. Given the choice between better photo quality and faster operation, go for better quality every time unless you plan to shoot NBA basketball. Consumer grade and mid-range digital cameras typically exhibit relatively slow operation compared to digital SLR cameras.
15. Anti-shake stabilization - very nice in low light. Unfortunately, most mid-range cameras are only now acquiring optical anti-shake technology. "Digital anti-shake" or its verbal equivalent is also a scam - it just raises the sensor sensitivity and uses a faster shutter speed, leaving you with very noisy, potentially unusable images. In contrast, true mechanical anti-shake technology moves the sensor or a lens element to truly compensate for the kind of slow shutter speed camera shake that is the leading cause of blurred images.
16. Low light capability: Generally speaking, digital SLR cameras tend to excel primarily in low light capabilities and speed of operation. Digital SLR cameras with only their basic "kit lens" are often no sharper than some of the better mid-range cameras that include a RAW file format option.
17. Easily transportable size. All other things being equal, it's easier to take a compact camera with you wherever you go and thus a compact camera is more likely to be used. On the other hand, compact cameras have to strike a balance between convenient small size and overall image quality. If forced to make a decision, opt for better image quality rather than style and compact size.

Cameras that I Evaluated

Firstly, all of the cameras listed here produced at least acceptable 20"x24" color prints although some models produced demonstrably better images. Except for one older model included for comparative purposes, all of the models listed remained in production as of January 20, 2007, after the conclusion of the Winter 2007 Consumer Electronics Show.

All lens zoom ranges are quoted in 35 mm film camera equivalent focal length. All mentioned cameras include a decent LCD screen on the camera but some omit optical viewfinders. All cameras include built-in electronic flash, fully automatic capabilities, and at least some more common scene modes. All mentioned cameras also include adequate or better construction quality except as noted and an adequate movie mode except the Nikon D80 and Canon Rebel Xti digital SLR cameras and the Sony DSC-R1, a large SLR-like camera. Adobe Photoshop CS2 and Adobe Photoshop Elements 5 directly support the RAW format files of each camera mentioned here as including RAW capability. Price in parentheses is the approximate "street price", not list price.

1. Panasonic DMC-LX2, 10.2MP 16:9 wide screen sensor with Leica branded 28-112 mm lens. This is a compact camera that includes RAW format option, anti-shake technology, full manual controls, and histogram but no optical viewfinder. (Introduced late 2006). ($400)
2. Canon A640, a moderately compact 10.0 MP with Canon 35-140mm lens. Includes an optical viewfinder and very nice LCD that can be positioned at almost any angle but no RAW format, no live histogram, no anti-shake and somewhat inconvenient manual controls. (Introduced Autumn 2006). Optical quality is generally excellent but it appears that Canon has deleted some previously included features to avoid competing with more expensive offerings whose basic optical quality is no better. (First available Autumn 2006) ($350-$400)
3. Kodak P880, an 8.0 MP mid-sized SLR-like camera with a Schneider-Kreuznach 24-140mm lens, RAW file format, excellent manual control, hot shoe for dedicated external electronic flash, exposure bracketing even with RAW format images, but no anti-shake technology. (Introduced November 2005) ($280 to $399 when ordered directly from Kodak)
4. Sony DSC-R1, 10.3 MP large format APS-C sensor with Carl Zeiss 24-120mm lens, RAW file format and an LCD screen that can be positioned at various angles, but no anti-shake technology. This is a very large camera. $900) ( First available January 2006)
5. Canon Rebel XTi (EOS400) SLR 10.1 MP large format sensor with the Canon 18-55 mm ( 35mm equivalent would be 28mm to 88 mm ) "kit" lens included with the basic . Optional lenses are usually sharper a basic kit zoom lens sold with the camera body but cost several hundred dollars each. The Rebel XTi is small for an SLR camera but still relatively large compared to compact and moderately compact cameras. Includes RAW file format, optical viewfinder and anti-shake technology. (Introduced late summer 2006) ($775 with basic kit lens)
6. Nikon D80 SLR 10.2 MP large format sensor with Nikon 18mm to 135 mm kit lens (35 mm equivalent would be 27mm to 200 mm). Again, optional "prime" lenses are usually sharper than a "kit lens" included with the basic camera body purchase but greatly increase your cost. Includes RAW file format, optical viewfinder and anti-shake technology. (Introduced late summer 2006). This is a large camera.. ($1,220)
7. Kodak P712, a 7.4 MP cousin that's very similar to the Kodak P880 but with a different sensor and lens, in this instance a Schneider-Kreuznach 36-432 mm equivalent high magnification telephoto zoom lens. (Introduced late summer 2006) Includes a hot shoe for a dedicated external electronic flash, RAW file format options and true anti-shake capability. This camera shares the same body design as the Kodak P880 but uses an electrically operated zoom lens rather than a manual zooming ring. This is a mid-sized SLR-like camera. ($380)
8. Fujifilm E900, a 9.0 MP moderately compact camera with a Fujifilm sensor that's less noisy under low light conditions and a 32mm -128mm Fuji 4X zoom lens.. The E900 is a basic compact camera that includes an optical viewfinder and RAW file format capability and manual control capability but no anti-shake technology. (First available December 2005) ($290)
9. Fujifilm F30, a 6.3MP compact camera with a reputation as the best compact camera to use in low lighting situations. The F30 includes a Fuji 3X zoom lens with a 36-108 mm equivalent coverage. It does not have an optical viewfinder, RAW format capability or true anti-shake technology. ($260)
10. Kodak z7630, a 6.1 MP moderately compact camera with a Schneider-Kreuznach 39-117 mm equivalent lens. It is included here as a comparison because it was considered one of the best affordable cameras a mere two to three years ago. (Available late summer 2004). (No longer made, last available as z760 for $165)
11. Olympus SP-350, an 8.0MP compact camera with a that surprisingly included a RAW file format, full manual control, a hot shoe for an external electronic flash, and an optical viewfinder. It does not have true optical anti-shake technology. (Introduced late 2005) ($290)
12. Kodak c875 8.0 MP with Schneider-Kreuznach 37-185 mm equivalent lens, included here because it has received unusually good reviews for an inexpensive consumer camera. (Introduced late summer 2006). It has full manual controls but no optical viewfinder, does not support RAW file format, and does not support true optical anti-shake technology. ($169)

Test Results

1. All of the listed cameras could produce a decent quality 20"x24" color photographic print.
2. Only one person out of twelve considered a print from a digital SLR, in this case the Nikon D80, to be the sharpest.
3. There was a clear but not overwhelming consensus that the prints from the Kodak P880, Panasonic DMC-LX2, and, to a lesser extent the Canon A640, were the sharpest of the twelve different cameras.
4. There was a strong consensus that the Kodak P880 print had the best overall appearance. I included two copies of the same Kodak P880 image in the tests without telling people. This occurred initially because of an accidental double printing of the Kodak P880 image but I decided to leave the second copy in as a "ringer" to see how it would affect the observers's conclusions. Interestingly, there were a few cases where people unknowingly chose both of the identical P880 prints as the two best but where then unable to make a further choice between them.
5. Perceptions of sharpness were affected by contrast and good color balance. Prints with more contrast and with better color balance were perceived as sharper even though they were not upon minute inspection.
6. Sensor noise was not a problem, even in the clear sky details, on any of the prints. This was undoubtedly due to noise correction software built into the HP DesignJet130 printer driver. Several of the evaluated cameras, particularly the Panasonic LX2 had a reputation for very noisy sensors but that was not apparent here. Other printers, such as the Canon i9900, were also effective at suppressing image noise in the final print but not to the same degree as the HP DesignJet 130.
7. The best way to reduce or eliminate evident sensor noise in compact and mid-range cameras is to shoot at the lowest feasible sensitivity, to ensure ample exposure, and to use a tripod or monopod to reduce camera shake if you need to use a slow shutter speed.
8. Optical quality seemed to have the greatest overall impact on the final image. Some cameras had visible softness or uncorrected chromatic aberrations where all colors do not come to a single focus. The Fujifilm F30 and E900 showed a particularly large amount of chromatic aberration but the Nikon D80 also, to my surprise, showed some as well.
9. Details of photos taken with the 6 MP cameras were slightly softer than cameras with higher resolution sensors. However, if a very good lens is used, as with the Kodak z7630, a 6 MP camera can take excellent photographs that can be enlarged to 20"x24" so longer as you do not inspect the images with a magnifying glass. Overall compact camera image quality did not seem to be substantially affected by whether the sensor contained 6MP, 8MP or 10MP. 8 MP is probably adequate for most purposes assuming a very good lens.
10. The Olympus SP-350 should have been a nearly perfect pocket camera. for the advanced amateur. However, the SP-350 showed a little too much softness in fine details and too warm overall for my taste. Images taken with a 6 MP Kodak seemed sharper overall.
11. The Sony DSC-R1 images were very sharp and had a very pleasing color balance. However, they did not appear as sharp to most observers, most likely because the default Sony R1 images were somewhat lower contrast. That is not necessarily a bad thing because low contrast can always be corrected more completely and more easily than too-high contrast that results in the loss of highlight or shadow detail.
12. The Canon A640, Kodak P880, Sony R1 and Nikon D80 had the nicest overall color balance. However, the Nikon D80 did show some strange chromatic aberrations in unexpected areas but these may be a problem with the specific shot or camera.
13. The Kodak C875 was very sharp for a low price consumer grade camera and made a good print. However, the color was too saturated on the default setting and reducing saturation in the camera's setup menu would be advisable.
14. The Panasonic LX2 was probably the sharpest image but its color balance was too bluish for my taste. However, that sort of color balance problem can be rectified in seconds if you are shooting your images in the camera's RAW format and adjust the color temperature using the Adobe Camera Raw plug-in for Photoshop CS2 or Photoshop Elements 5. Overall, I thought that the LX2 was the best compact camera, assuming that you are shooting in broad daylight using a RAW file format and don't need quick shot to shot performance.
15. Overall, I thought that the Kodak P880 was the best overall camera for a law office and suited for both a raw amateur and an advanced photographer. I also thought that it was the most cost-effective camera in the group that I tested.
16. Closely following theP880 in overall quality and cost-effectiveness are the Panasonic LX2 and the Canon A640. In head-on tests, I did find that the P880 was somewhat sharper than the A640, even without using the P880's uncompressed RAW file format.
17. The Fuji F30 is an excellent pocket camera and is used by many professional photographers as their traveling camera. I found its images a little softer but still quite acceptable. Taking into account the F30's good low light capabilities, I believe that it might be an excellent casual and travel camera.
18. I had high hopes for the Fuji E900 as a decent compact camera with RAW capability but I was rather disappointed by its optical quality. The lens exhibited noticeable distortion at the not-very-wide widest setting, and very noticeable chromatic aberration throughout the image
19. The Kodak P712 was a sharp and full-featured camera with a very high magnification zoom lens. It would make an excellent camera for surveillance purposes, wildlife photography or other uses that require a powerful telephoto capability. Other cameras in its class include the Canon S3 IS and the Sony DSC-H5 but neither of these latter cameras includes RAW capability or a hot shoe for a dedicated electronic flash. My choice for a long lens camera is the P712.
20. The Canon Rebel X T I produced pleasing images with nice color balance but its relatively high price and somewhat soft basic kit lens render it not very cost-effective compared to some of the other comparable cameras here unless you need fast shot to shot performance or the ability to shoot in low light conditions. No one picked the Canon Rebel as either being either sharpest or presenting the most pleasing overall image. I considered its quality to be pretty decent personally.
21. The 2004 Kodak z7630 (which mutated in 2005 into the z760) was actually quite sharp for an older 6 MP camera. I thought that its images stood up quite well to newer designs using higher resolution sensors.

Recommendations

1. Kodak P880 as an all-around, relatively inexpensive and easy to use camera with professional capabilities
2. Canon A640 as s high resolution point and shoot camera if you don't need RAW file format and external electronic flash capabilities
3. Panasonic LX2 as an excellent compact camera with top end sharpness
4. Kodak P712 for long telephoto surveillance purposes including long range video
5. Fuji F30 as a lightweight travel and low light camera.
6. Expensive digital SLR cameras are probably too bulky and expensive for average law office use. Also, digital SLR cameras can provide fast, easy digital video.

---

Basic Digital Photography Made Easy, or at least a little less obscure, Part 1 , March 2006 Law Practice Today, by Joe Kashi; Basic Digital Photography Made Easy, Part 2, April 2006 LPT by Joe Kashi ; and Authenticating Digital Photographs by Joe Kashi

Other very highly regarded digital camera review and evaluation sites include www.imaging-resource.com ; www.steves-digicams.com ; www.megapixel.net ( Canada) and www.dpreview.com ( UK)

I did not use post-exposure computer software to enhance sharpeness, noise reduction, or color balance.

We'll also discuss the DesignJet 130 in a companion article in this issue.