Re: Epson use in dental offices

["David L. Morel" <dlmorel@home.net>]

all she needs to do is get a nikon 700...same imaging as the  950 but none
of the bells and whistles...less than 800 probably...with the printer...get
one of those little dye subs that only print 4x6's or if needed...get the
epson that prints directly from the compact flash card...no printer
needed...whole thing costs less than 1200 and prints will be around .30 a
pop...

david l. morel
www.themorels.com


----- Original Message -----
From: Ken K <ellipsis@concentric.net>
To: <epson-inkjet@leben.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 22, 1999 11:31 AM
Subject: Re: Epson use in dental offices


> Jim Osmundson wrote:
> >
> > Has anyone had experience with a digital camera and an Epson Photo
Stylus in
> > a dental office? One of my dental marketing clients wants to get away
from
> > the expensive Polaroid set up she is using to send along a 4" x 6"
picture
> > to the insurance companies for claims purposes.
>
> You're/she's kidding, right? Has anyone thought this through on even a
> basic, non-technical level? What's your friend's time worth? In a busy
> clinic situation like a dentist office, I can see NO advantage to using
> anything BUT Polaroid. At the rates dentists charge, they want to try
> and cut costs on a picture?
>
> For purposes of medical record, the advantages of Polaroid are longevity
> and immediacy. A patient presents, a Polaroid is snapped, a name and
> file number are written on the back of the Polaroid and all is good.
> Start funneling digital pix through the same situation and see how
> things get mixed up.
>
> > My experience so far with digital cameras is that to get one that can
handle
> > a good macro lens one is in the $5,000 and up range which is much more
than
> > her present Polaroid set up. No doubt the Epson printer would give a
nice
> > graphic rendering once the file is downloaded into their Mac.
>
> Sure, after someone spends a considerable amount of time handling the
> photo in route from snap to print and cut/label.
>
> Remember - the Epson prints aren't going to be free, so they'd have to
> be a LOT cheaper than a Polaroid in order to justify ANY further costs
> like a $5k camera. And even if the added expense could somehow be
> justified with some bizarre, obtuse, bookeeping charade, the longevity
> and tracking accuracy of the Polaroid still remain.
>
> And they already OWN the Polaroid equipment - right?
>
> Of course, there's a good chance that there is additional information to
> this scenario that I'm not aware of, however it seems like someone is
> getting ready to outsmart themselves. With such a penchant for toys,
> it's no wonder dentists charge what they do.
>
> Just my $.02
>
> Ken
> ____________________________
>
> Luck comes in two flavors...
> ____________________________
> -
> Please do not include an entire message in your response. Delete the
excess.
> http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.

-
Please do not include an entire message in your response. Delete the excess.
http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.