Best Digital Camera for Evidence/Legal Photography

Hi to All,

I would just like to get your thoughts on what would be the best system in

terms of resolution and flexibility for evidence/legal photography.

Example: Canon 30D/Canon 5D/Nikon D80, D200?

If shooting pics for an attorney for court use, would big enlargements be

necessary and would 8-10mp be sufficient (shooting raw)?

Thanks in advance,

BRN

I use Nikon, so I can only comment on their cameras. I have used a Nikon D100 for legal cases, and had no problem with having a large enough file for enlargments. So, a D200 would also work fine.

There is also a debate on whether to shoot JPEG or RAW. JPEG of course "throws" some info away. But, if you shoot RAW, you can easily "alter", or what some people might call "enhance", the photo. Right now, the FBI is saying to shoot RAW.

Hi Bernard, I'm certainly no expert in the field but I would think that one of Canon's inexpensive DSLRs (30D will work fine though) coupled with the Canon 50mm f/2.5 Macro Lens would work nicely.

The lens is razor sharp with pretty much zero distortion and could be used as a closeup lens as well.

Since it's so sharp, I can't imagine one having problems enlarging images very big indeed - assuming proper technique, of course.

Remember though that a 50mm lens on a 1.6x body (like most of Canon's DSLRs with the exception of the 5D and 1Ds full-frame sensors and/or a 35mm film camera) would work out to an 80mm focal length due to the "crop factor".

Just my .02 cent's worth... Good luck!

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06080904fujifilms3prouvir.asp

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00G8KZ

For Evidence/Legal Photography ,

YOu cant just use any camera for that purpose.

I think you'll gonna need a verification software compatible camera like the Canon 1ds 2, You cant just present a photo to a judge that is not certified orig., untampered and unedited.

I work as a paralegal in South Carolina, USA. My firm does quite a bit of construction litigation. I very often photograph defects and damages using a Nikon D70. My photographs have been used in court dozens of times. It has proven to be sufficient at producing necessary enlargements. Verification software is not really necessary in the vast majority of cases. I am always asked by the attorneys on my side of the case if the photographs represent an accurate and truthful depiction of the scene at the time, and whether they have been materially altered in any way. I have NEVER been challenged by an attorney from the other side. Most of the photographs presented by the other side are taken by thier experts using point and shoot digitals.

I don't say that verification software is never needed, but that it would be quite a rare case.

I'm a paralegal in So-Caland I'd agree with Richard Glover. The photographer can generally lay the foundation for the photo if neccessary. Very seldom a problem nor is it challanged. I would always shoot raw so I could have a copy of the untouched file available and if neccessary an expert can review and testify about it.

Most of the local PD's are pretty much going to digital, including the traffic officers and the CII's. However, there is exceptions. One of the principals at our firm doesn't use any digital photography unless it was provided in the case either by another party, or from a client that uses it. If I shoot for him, its film. But other attorneys in our office don't have any problem with digital.

Let me add, I use a Nikon D200. When I use it I either use a 50mm or an old 55 macro 3.5. Even thought the crop factors make them cover the area of a short tele, the distortion factor is still that of a "normal 50" and thus is more "accurate".

If you are concerned about that issue, you might want to get a Cannon 5D or better.

I know some traffic engineers and other accident recons, will make a point of noting if the lens is not a normal lens, because of the distortion factor. This is the same for film too. I can use a 35 carefully as well. But for digital, the 35 is closer to a 50 in coverage with the rectilinear featurs of a wide angle 35.

Any GOOD photo taken with a digital camera would suffice I'm sure. However it would be absolutely essential to use ORIGINAL DECISION DATA (as in my EOS 20D with CF 18), and then acquire the CANON Data Verification Kit DVK-E2 to verify that the image is the original. Other Canons do it as well, do not know about other makes.

Regards Myrddin Jones

I worked for a time as an adjuster and we had really cruddy little film cameras. Maybe polaroids at times. I don't recall if they were throwaways or not - maybe as the subject at hand would need to be dealt with and waiting until a roll was full would add to the complexity and confusion - clerical mistakes, mixing pictures, etc. Never once got training, any questioning about the images, circumstances, anything.

I'd suggest asking the target users/customers to see what they actually need and fit your choices to that. I wouldn't expect that TV dramas or even comedies would be an accurate depicton of the requirements.

<p>I know some traffic engineers and other accident recons, will make a point of noting if the lens is not a normal lens, because of the distortion factor. This is the same for film too. I can use a 35 carefully as well. But for digital, the 35 is closer to a 50 in coverage with the rectilinear featurs of a wide angle 35.<br>

<a href="http://www.legalx.net">Attorney Directory</a></p>