roadsmith
|
posted on October 22, 2000 03:11:15 PM
Did any of you digital camera owners see the latest Consumer Reports? They comment that "the Sony Mavica models tend to be bulky because they have to hold a 3 1/2 inch diskette."
I was all ready to get a Sony Mavica! They like the Olympus cameras better, in the 3- and 2-megapixel sizes. I'm terrified enough as it is to try all this newfangled stuff, and now I'm afraid this will set me back a few months in making a decision. Advice, anyone?
|
symar
|
posted on October 22, 2000 03:30:10 PM
I have a Mavica, I love the camera! I have normal size womens hand and I don't find it's size to be a hinderance.
Before you buy a camera, figure out what your primary purpose is. Then compare you actual needs with amount of "gadgets" on the camera you are interested in. How many of those expensive options are you really going to use?
Good luck!
|
magazine_guy
|
posted on October 22, 2000 03:41:51 PM
Love the Mavica.
BUT- if you're buying a digital primarily for vacations and such, instead of using it primarily for a stay-at-home web-pic camera, you might wanna consider one of the others. It IS a bit bulkier than some others, and doesn't come with a carrying case.
But for quick and easy and clear web pics, it can't be beat!
|
uaru
|
posted on October 22, 2000 03:56:21 PM
I won't tell you anything on the digital cameras but here's a personal observation on Consumer Reports. I've had some expertise on some products in the past where I compared my knowledge to Consumer Reports and was shocked at their recommendations. This was 30 years ago, but it sure left a me with a very negative opinion about them.
|
jensmome
|
posted on October 22, 2000 04:14:06 PM
I have an Olympus 340DL and I love it. In fact, I'm thinking about trading up to the new Olympus so I can get a zoom. I've used a Mavica and agree with Consumer Reports. They are too bulky. Especially if you are going to use them for anything other than eBay.
Kathy
|
kleavitt
|
posted on October 22, 2000 04:39:46 PM
Here we go again!! For eBay you can't beat the Mavica with the optional wide angle lens. If you want a case they are also available. With the WA lens it does great on vacation shots. The versatility for our use can't be beat. I used a high $$ Kodak 290 for a while and it was a real pain to work with. It also required USB which I did not have at the time (Sony works on any computer). You just can't beat the floppy for quick, effortless ebay pix. I personally don't want the mega-giga resolution. Takes too long to download my images and may put off buyers. My vacation shots in London last year turned out superb. I don't know how much greener you can make the grass with a hi-res camera but my Sony did just great!!
|
roadsmith
|
posted on October 22, 2000 05:05:34 PM
Thanks, everyone! I do appreciate your thoughts.
Kleavitt: You said you personally don't want the mega-giga resolution because it takes too long to download your images.
Please tell me more! All the digital cameras in the report had at least 1 mega-pixel. Don't all digital cameras work like this? (And can you tell how ignorant I am on the subject??)
I've had the experience of downloading pictures in an Ebay auction and getting impatient with how long it takes. I do not want to do that to potential buyers.
|
yisgood
|
posted on October 22, 2000 05:50:47 PM
If you plan on taking auction photos, you dont need much resolution. If you plan on taking family and vacation pics, you need at least 1.5 megapixels and more is better. Sony uses a 1.4 meg diskette to hold images. That makes it pretty clear that it cant be really high resolution because a high res image takes almost a meg. That's why a good camera comes with at least 8 mb.
As for how long it takes to download a high res image, that depends on your setup. Yes, if you're using the ultra-slow serial port it will take a long time. But good cameras come with USB downloading or you buy a smartmedia adaptor that lets you use usb or floppy and images download in seconds.
For links to detailed reviews on digital cameras and sample images, you can visit my web site or email me with questions and I'll be happy to answer.
http://www.ygoodman.com
[email protected]
|
macandjan
|
posted on October 22, 2000 08:12:37 PM
It really takes about 3 mega pixels to be able to blow a pic up to 8 x 10 with the same clarity of an average 35mm.
Digital cameras are just not = to film yet for art and high resolution.
most of my pic from my mavica are at a fourth of a megapixel and I reduce them in size by a factor of 5 or 6 and increase the compression to make the file smaller. 30K is nice.
With my Nikon and a micronikor lens I can take a pic with photomicrography film and blow it up to tabloid size and you still have not resolveed all the detail there. It would take about 12 megapixels to equall it and that is still a 35mm piece of film. Imaigine what you can capture on a 8 x 10 piece of film in a view camera! The equal digital imaige would fill your hard drive.
|
kasue
|
posted on October 22, 2000 08:16:47 PM
kleavitt: I am very happy with my Mavica, too. Would the wide angle lens let me capture, say, a sterling souvenir spoon better without having to take a picture of each end of it?
I use the Mavica mostly for Ebay, but I find it takes wonderful pictures of my great niece outdoors. The indoor pictures aren't bad either.
|
Borillar
|
posted on October 22, 2000 11:40:49 PM
I'll pipe in and tell you that I like my Nikon CoolPix 990. It is a 3.2 MegaPixel model and for our jewelry, it is outstanding.
I haven't used it's automated features such as point-and-shoot kind of stuff: my camera never leaves the bench. I find the the 9.5 megabyte TIF file that it can create to be quite nice in a photo blow up to a 3 x 5 photo size.
For most folks, I gather that the Sony Mavica is just fine. We spent the extra $300 for the high-resolution and digital controls to maximize the quality of the images on our jewelry. Just depends on how much quality and control it is that you want as to which camera to buy.
But, whatever you do - buy a Digital!
|
magazine_guy
|
posted on October 23, 2000 12:52:01 AM
Someone above was confusing megapixels with megabytes, I think. Two entirely different things....
For web pics, you don't need megapixel resolution. Max resolution with current monitors is 72 dpi, as I recall. So if you create a huge file with a wonderful pic with great resolution, you're just wasting disc storage and bandwidth.
My Mavica has Megapixel resolution. I never use it. I get about 20 web pics per floppy disc, then just shove another in. The battery runs for about an hour and a half- enough to take hundreds of pics.
|
ascorti
|
posted on October 23, 2000 07:35:26 AM
"the Sony Mavica models tend to be bulky because they have to hold a 3 1/2 inch diskette."
Two observations:
1. My daughters, age 7 and 10 and both petite, have no problems handling and using my FD-83.
2. The use of disks is exactly the selling point for me. I can take my Mavica to a wedding and take pics and just give the disks to the happy couple; I'd never do that with a memory card that costs $50 to $90. Also, I can snap pics of groups of items I'm going to sell, and just keep the disk with those items till they're all sold. Really a convenience for me.
ascorti
|
RB
|
posted on October 23, 2000 07:46:22 AM
To me, the extra bulk of the Mavica (which does have a very nice custom carrying case btw) is easily outweighed by the hassle of trying to access the back of my PC to plug in one of those other cameras, then load and run special software just to view my pictures 
PS - The Sony memory stick solves the problem of limited 1.4 M disk space if you want high res pictures ...
[ edited by RB on Oct 23, 2000 07:48 AM ]
|
eventer
|
posted on October 23, 2000 07:48:02 AM
Before you buy, wander down to any local place that carries digital cameras & take a good look at them, including picking them up for weight.
I have the FD90, my sister has the Cybershot. I can use either the floppy disc or a memory stick. Best of both worlds!
|
yisgood
|
posted on October 23, 2000 07:53:13 AM
My pick as the best camera for both auctions and family shots, is the Toshiba PDR-M4. It is a 2.1 megapixel that gives extremely sharp shots even when blown up to 8 X 10. It is so tiny that it can fit in a pants pocket. It takes shots in 1/4 second intervals. I keep the USB cable plugged into my PC so all I have to do is attach the camera and download the photos, which takes about a second per high res photo. I really cant think of anything that is faster or more convenient. Yes, I can see the convenience of taking wedding shots and handing the bride a diskette of the photos. But since a high res photo needs a meg of disk space, how much quality gets sacrificed to fit a few on to a floppy? And what happens if the floppy has a sector error? Never happened to me with a smartmedia card. I see the Mavica as a hobbyist camera but not for someone serious about good photos.
http://www.ygoodman.com
[email protected]
|
dina9
|
posted on October 23, 2000 08:44:28 AM
Just have to chime in with my plug for the Nikon CoolPix. I have a 950 and it is the best digital camera I have ever used. The quality of the photos is beyond compare. I use it for close-ups of my jewelry as well as any other photo I need to take. It is light, comfortable to handle and easy to use for a novice, but offers advanced options as well. When I download I am fortunate, the USB port is on the front of my computer, so plugging it in is no problem.
IMHO is an unbelievably great camera. I have used Nikons in many forms for many years and they are my tried and true camera of choice. I have a 25+ year old Nikon F1 that is still in top form!!!
Whatever camera you choose, I wish you happy picture taking.
|
