Digital cameras have taken over the photography world by storm. It is rare to find those who still use film-based cameras these days outside of technophobes and ethusiasts. If you are reading this site, you are likely not among these groups. As someone often perceived of as a tech guru, I am frequently asked for advice on camera purchases. The technology changes rapidly, and many companies offer high quality products. If you plan on buying a compact camera to carry with you, it really is not particularly important which exact model you buy. Try to find one that is comfortable for you to use and has a decent screen for framing and viewing photogrpahs. There is no single camera that will work for everyone.

Not very specific advice, is it? That’s because there’s no “right” answer. However, there are a few important issues to consider that you may not have thought about. First of all, forget about megapixel counts. This may seem like heresy - you were probably told that that higher megapixel counts are better. This has some basis in truth, but in practice does not apply for most photographers. Digital pictures are made up of millions (hence the “mega”) of tiny colored dots called pixels. The more pixels a photo contains, the more potential detail it has (and the more memory the picture requires). Early digital cameras struggled to achieve a single megapixel (1 million pixels). Today, most companies make cameras with several megapixels, often 5 or more. More megapixels won’t be noticeable unless you are making extremely large prints with your photos. For prints up to a full 8.5×11 page (and certainly for onscreen display), 5 megapixels is plenty.

Unfortunately, there’s more ot picture quality than megapixels. The quality of the lenses is critial, and the quality of the imaging element is also important. Imagine a very talented artist who was capable of drawing pictures with increadible detail, but who also had terrible eyesight. Without good glasses, he would not be able to reproduce the world well. That’s why it’s important to look at real samples of images before you buy a camera (try to get these from various camera review sites around the web, rather than the company’s website).

No matter which camera you consider (no matter how many megapixels it has), the picture quality will likely pale in comparison to a digital SLR (or dSLR) camera. Digital SLR cameras look like the traditiional bulky cameras of yesteryear, but their internals are modern. These cameras tend to be more expensive than the compact microcameras that many people use, and certainly won’t fit in your pocket. The step-up in quality, even for a relative novice, is substantial, even at the same (or lower) megapixel count. The reasons for this are multiple, including the size of the digital sensor in the camera and the quality of the optics.

With traditional compact cameras, you are stuck with the lens that comes built-in to your camera. With dSLRs, you can change the lens for particular tasks. Need to shoot a detailed portrait? Your lens will be different than one used for distance photography. A huge range of lenses are available, and you can select those suited to your needs. The larger apertures available on dSLRs allow for limited depth of field, so the subject can be in focus while the background is blurred. Many photographic effects are simply impossible with compact cameras.  I’ll comment more about starter dSLRs in a future article.

When you come across a fruit with the name “blood orange” at Whole Foods, you simply can’t pass it up. At least, I couldn’t. At only a slight premium, these oranges (imported from Italy) look just like regular oranges on the outside. Inside, the meat of the fruit is the deep red that gives them their name. Despite being late in the orange season, they taste quite good. The flavor is somewhere between an orange and a pomegranate. They are sweet, but also a bit “winey”. Definitely worth a try.

I don’t normally talk about events at work on this blog, but I thought this was a good reflection of my chronically sleep-deprived state. As I worked on a note in clinic, I heard a baby screaming in the background. I assumed it was a patient who had a brought a small child into the waiting room. The noise persisted, so I commented to the nurse, “Wow, someone is really screaming out there,” internally sympathizing with the poor parent who was no doubt trying in vain to comfort their young one. I was surprised to hear the nurse’s response. “What screaming?” she asked. As someone who is always wondering if years of iPod use have caused irreversible damage to his auditory system, I was puzzled. Surely I was not the only one who heard this noise.

“Oh that,” she continued. “That’s not someone screaming. That’s the electric paper towel dispenser in the bathroom.” I had almost certainly heard the sound before, but my brain interpreted it differently now. After a good chuckle was had at my expense, I continued my work and refrained from further comments about ambient sounds.

As if I didn’t have enough side projects to maintain, I have decided to enter the world of medical calculator websites.

Many medical calculations are tiresome to perform by hand, and thus prone to errors. In the past, I have used Palm-based medical calculators, but it can be cumbersome to enter values into a handheld device. Web-based calculators have the promise to be more convenient, but most web-based calculator sites I’ve come aross have been poorly designed and slow to use. Nearly all require use of a “calculate” or “submit” button, which seems redundant given the power of modern computers, most of which can perform these calculations instantaneously.

In that setting, I set out to create a new site (largely for myself at first) that would allow for instantaneous calculations and keyboard navigation. This required the use of dynamic HTML which sacrifices some compatibility (ironically with the Palm OS web browser), but I think ultimately it is worth the sacrifice.

The new site is now up at http://www.calculomatic.com. Right now, I only have a few renal calclulators available, but I hope to expand this with time.

If you are like me, you grew up on classic arcade video games like Shinobi, AfterBurner, Space Harrier, etc. You may have thought there would never be a chance to return to these old classics outside of usually poorly-done home system translations. Fortunately, there is a way to play these classics without spending thousands of dollars on bulky arcade equipment.

The Mulitple Arcade Machine Emulator (MAME) is software that does exactly what its name suggests: emulate an impressive number of classic arcade machines. The software is available for both PC and Macs (though the Mac version has not yet been updated for Intel-based Macs, so may run a bit slowly on these machines). To play a specific game, you will need to download the “ROM” for that game, and a large number are available at ROM World, along with links to even more emulators.

Tip: if you experience “tearing” (visual artifacts that cause distortion of the screen) on the Windows version, try running running MAME with the -waitvsync option on.

All but the most skilled linguists regularly come across words we read for which we are not quite sure of the definition. Many turn to a traditional dictionary, but these can be cumbersome and slow. Computers make excellent dictionaries because of the rapidity with which definitions can be accessed. Strangely, however, few computers come with a built in dictionary (one that actually defines, not merely a spell-checker). Apple includes a dictionary with the Mac, both as a stand-alone application and as a dashboard widget. Even these dictionaries aren’t necessarily the most convenient when you are on browsing the web.

Fortunately, the hundreds of engineers supported by Google’s ever expanding fortune have come up with a solution. Into any Google search box (including those built in to most browsers), you can type define: followed by the word of interest. For example, entering “define: technology” culls a range of definitions for technology from around the web; it’s a sort of meta-dictionary. It is not necessarily a traditional dictionary, but it can be a nice complement.