mauimoods
|
posted on September 28, 2000 09:25:59 PM
Well, after seeing these pics, I think its time to get a Fuji MX-1200 and give my AFGA to hubby! THANKS! Wont need my scanner either!
|
jema
|
posted on September 28, 2000 09:33:52 PM
Does the Fuji MX1200 have both viewfinder and LCD screen? I would want to look thru a viewfinder like a regular camera, not have to hold the camera out in front of me to look thru LCD to take a picture.
[ edited by jema on Sep 28, 2000 09:34 PM ]
|
thedewey
|
posted on September 28, 2000 10:24:05 PM
jema -- Yes, it has both a standard viewfinder and the LCD screen. On regular standard shots, you can use whichever you prefer. On macro shots, you have to use the LCD screen.
Here's the exact specs, as listed on the back of the package:
Resolution: 1,280x960 / 640x480
File Format: JPG with 3 compression levels
Storage Media: SmartMedia 3.3V, 2MB to 32MB
Number of Images: (Based on a 4MB SmartMedia card, which is what my camera came with) Fine=6, Normal=12, Basic=23 (by the way, my photos were taken in "normal" mode)
Lens: Fujinon lens, f=38mm on a 35mm camera
Focus: 70cm / 2.3 feet to infinity; 10cm / 4 inches (Macro)
White Balance: Automatic / Manual (6 modes)
Flash: Automatic
LCD Monitor: 1.6" color LCD monitor
Output: Serial (unless you use a floppy adapter, optional)
Power Source: AA x 4, AC Power Adapter (optional)
Dimensions: 4.3 x 3.0 x 1.3 inches
Weight: 7.1 oz without batteries
Other Functions: (Shooting) Auto, Manual, Self-timer, Digital 2x Zoom; (Playback) Single, 9 Multi-Frame, 4x Zoom, Autoplay
Included Accessories: 4MB SmartMedia Card, Hand Strap, 4 AA Batteries, Serial cable for Windows computers, CD-ROM with data transfer software, TWAIN Driver, Adobe PhotoDeluxe Home Edition 3.0
Some other features mentioned in the manual: night scenery, red-eye reduction, flash can be set to auto/forced/suppressed, can adjust brightness of LCD screen, date/time, low battery indicator, brightness (exposure compensation) control, white balance for best shots under different lighting conditions (auto/outdoors/shade/daylight fluorescent/warm white fluorescent/cool white fluorescent/incandescent), sharpness control.
(whew!)
I also want to add that I'm not knocking the Sony Mavicas. I know they're great cameras and I know they're very popular for good reasons. I just think that Fuji also offers a great camera, with a lot of features for the price. 
|
zeenza
|
posted on September 29, 2000 04:51:36 AM
I am interested in seeing how these cameras do for say, vintage clothing or antique furniture. Any adjustments or special lighting needed? Thanks
|
abacaxi
|
posted on September 29, 2000 05:02:23 AM
zeenza -
Is this good enough?
Ordinary photography kind of lighting ... the bigger the object, the more light you need. Two halogen work lights, aimed at the object, will usually do the trick. You want them to be as far from each other as they are from the object:
Or ... get fancy and use a backlit background for the piece.
And for SHINY things ... use a diffuser between the light and the object.
|
zeenza
|
posted on September 29, 2000 08:12:05 AM
OK I am sold!! Where do I place my bid? 
|
junqueen3
|
posted on September 29, 2000 12:47:58 PM
based on info picked up on this thread, (i had been deliberating for weeks on purchasing a digital camera) i did a little investigating...was thinking either the fuji mx1200 (great price for features) and sony mavica fd73 (the bottom of that line-more expensive than fuji-more features-easier-no cords-etc..) after reading your recommendations and seeing sample pics you posted (thanks) i tried a website called pricescan.com for "unbiased" recommendations of sellers with the cheapest prices on products-the lowest quote on a mavica fd73 was 384.00! unfortunately, most of the sellers with the cheapest prices don't have the item in stock-but with a little investigation i was able to find one for $407.00! i just ordered it-haven't received item yet-we'll see how it all "pans" out--but the pricescan site was a great help once i decided on what i wanted.
|
magazine_guy
|
posted on September 29, 2000 04:28:21 PM
Yikes!
Those are the BIGGEST pennies I've ever seen!
Can anyone get a closeup of the nose hairs up Abe's nostril???
|
kleavitt
|
posted on September 29, 2000 04:59:49 PM
CAREFUL ABOUT PRICE SCAM....ER, I MEAN SCAN. I too tried to go this route and one of the stores I contacted, located in NYC was "suddenly out of stock" and the other was "undergoing remodeling" so all they could offer was a much higher than advertised price for another brand. One of these stores later appeared on one of the investigative TV magazine programs shown ripping off customers. I ended up doing a local search on ebay and buying my FD 73 from a local seller that I could meet in person. Everything worked out super!
|
Muriel
|
posted on September 29, 2000 05:29:10 PM
I have to vote Sony Mavica. It's very user friendly. I should know because I'm not very camera friendly! 
|
psalms139
|
posted on September 29, 2000 06:06:30 PM
I have a Polaroid PDC700. Paid $218 and it does NOT take very good pictures!! I wish I had known about the Sony Mavica back then.
I recently went to a wedding and borrowed the Sony...and the pictures were sooo easy to take and load! The pictures were high quality!
I'm saving for a Sony Mavica!!
(The camera that would be able to take the close up of even Abes nostril hairs!!
|
valerie47
|
posted on September 29, 2000 06:09:00 PM
|
quazz
|
posted on September 29, 2000 06:37:27 PM
2nd UBB attempt
Taken with a Nikon 900s
|
hammerchick
|
posted on September 29, 2000 06:44:56 PM
Valerie, funny nose hairs! Reminds me of the saying "He can pinch a penny so tight he could make Abe Lincoln have a nosebleed"
|
labrat4gmos
|
posted on September 29, 2000 06:58:53 PM
Geesh! I purchased a Olympus D-340R last spring and get horrible blurry closeups. Your photos posted here are beautiful. Guess I'll have to earn a little more money for that kind. On the other hand, this electronically/mechanically challenged person might not do any better with another one.
LabRat4 (with a long sighhhhh!)
|
mrpotatoheadd
|
posted on September 29, 2000 07:02:27 PM
Acer scanner- $20 (after rebate).
OK- I know it's not a camera, but if you only need to do flat items, it's an inexpensive alternative.
edited... url goof
[ edited by mrpotatoheadd on Sep 29, 2000 07:03 PM ]
|
jema
|
posted on September 29, 2000 07:13:54 PM
Do digital cameras require that you manually focus a picture every time, or do they have automatic focus? Or does it depend on model? What about the Sony and the Fuji that are discussed here, auto focus on those?
[ edited by jema on Sep 29, 2000 07:19 PM ]
|
valerie47
|
posted on September 29, 2000 07:22:29 PM
Jema:
I have the Sony Mavica FD-73. There is no focusing at all! Just point and shoot. It also has 10x zoom. I wouldn't trade this camera in for anything!
|
jema
|
posted on September 29, 2000 07:34:17 PM
Valerie--
How is your camera for mid range pics? I read some comparisons on some websites, and a few people commented that close up is great but normal further away shots were grainy or blurry. Have you had any problem like this?
typo
[ edited by jema on Sep 29, 2000 07:35 PM ]
|
valerie47
|
posted on September 29, 2000 07:36:44 PM
Jema:
Feel free to check out any of my auctions. My ID is the same as it is here. I take far away, mid-range and also close-up pictures for almost every auction. I have never had any problems with this camera - at any range it takes great pictures. This is the 5th digital camera I've had in the past 2 years and I wish I had just gotten this one to begin with!
(If you check out my auctions, all the pictures are scaled down through AW so you have to click on the pictures to see them full-view)
|
psalms139
|
posted on September 29, 2000 07:40:31 PM
Valerie47: I just knew that camera could do the "job"!!!......Good One!! LOL
I used the Sony Mavica and I KNOW it's the camera for me.
The pictures on here are all very nice! Digital Cameras certainly have improved over the past couple years!!
|
magazine_guy
|
posted on September 29, 2000 07:53:10 PM
Hahaha!
I knew somebody would rise to the challenge!
Thanks, Val (and welcome back!)
Steve
[email protected]
|
Joanne
|
posted on September 30, 2000 05:39:31 AM
These were taken with my Mavica FD71 which I've had for about three years:
These are large so I'll just post links:
http://www.lynnet.com/~jmm/beach1.jpg
http://www.lynnet.com/~jmm/beach2.jpg
http://www.lynnet.com/~jmm/beach3.jpg
I've been thinking about upgrading to the FD73 but the FD71 is holding up so well I'm going to wait a bit
|
thedewey
|
posted on September 30, 2000 01:05:19 PM
Here's some Fuji MX-1200 photos taken in "fine" resolution. (The others were taken in "normal" resolution.)
(edited 'cuz "in" is spelled IN, and not ON)
[ edited by thedewey on Sep 30, 2000 01:07 PM ]
|
jema
|
posted on September 30, 2000 01:30:52 PM
Thedewey---
Can you show us some pictures of mid range and far away shots? It looks like most of these cameras do a fine job close up.
|
thedewey
|
posted on September 30, 2000 02:01:00 PM
jema -- Will be glad to get some mid-range and "distance" photos ASAP.
|
thedewey
|
posted on September 30, 2000 04:04:57 PM
jema -- Here's some mid-range photos. The grass photo was taken from about 2 feet away, and the shrubbery photo was taken from 2-3 feet away. I'm going to post links to the photos, because they're a little large.
http://www.littlebeadshop.com/photos/grass.JPG
http://www.littlebeadshop.com/photos/bush.JPG
And here is a further distance photo:
http://www.littlebeadshop.com/photos/trees.JPG
I had my husband take the photos; he's as "amateur" a photographer as they come! He's only used the camera once before, to take two photos.
[ edited by thedewey on Sep 30, 2000 04:07 PM ]
|
jema
|
posted on September 30, 2000 04:32:08 PM
thedewey---
To me, the color of the Fuji pictures looks superior to the Mavica pics I have seen. Those look really vibrant! The pics from the Mavica look like they have a slight "gray" hue to them. Is this a misconception, Mavica users? There is big difference in the price of the Fuji and Sony, and the picture color quality looks better on the Fuji.
|
abacaxi
|
posted on September 30, 2000 04:51:31 PM
jema -
It's probably a function of lighting OR color correction instead of the camera.
With digital photo editing software it is easy to correct color. I've posted a couple of FREE ones - search the GRAPHICS TOOLS freeware at nonags.com
|
thedewey
|
posted on September 30, 2000 05:50:59 PM
jema -- It probably depends a lot on the lighting that's used. My older Fuji (DX-10) flat refused to take decent close-up photos at night (incandescent lighting). They'd come out orangy, and it was nearly impossible to edit the orange tones out. During the day, using either direct or indirect sunlight, it would do great.
My new Fuji (MX-1200) has a feature where you can set the camera to the kind of lighting you're using. In the first photo I posted on page 1, I was using incandescent lighting (nighttime), so I set the camera for incandescent.
The rest were taken in either direct or indirect sunlight. I did lighten up the penny photo above (page 2) just a bit, but that's the only "manual" editing that I did (other than cropping and resizing as necessary).
[ edited by thedewey on Sep 30, 2000 05:52 PM ]
|
