Camera PV 2007 » Digital Camera » Digitial Cameras
Digitial Cameras
Question:
I guess everyone has his own opinion, but I really like my Sony Mavica – no, it doesn’t replace a 35 mm, but it’s a nice complement. As for the floppy – I can save 9 or 10, maybe more, on a diskette, not just 2 or 3. The print quality does not match a 35 mm, but for display on a web site, it sure beats scanning them in. With cyber-storage so easily available now – driveway, idrive, etc. – seems like all you’d need to do would be to find a cybercafe (which seem to abound in Europe) and upload from the diskette, clean it off and start over. When you get home, your pictures would be waiting for you. I’ll let you know how my plan works when I get back from 2 weeks in Italy. Gail
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I’m about to depart on a three week trip to England and have been really > eyeing the Sony Mavica Digital Cameras (these are the kind that store the > picture directly on a floppy disk). I would be very interested to hear of > anyone that has used such a camera on a trip and what they thought of the > results. My other alternative is to do what I have always done – take > 35mm > and then scan them in – which takes a huge amount of time. Let me know > what > you think about these cameras. > thanks, > jpm > So how many floppy discs were you planning on carrying around? At 2 or 3 > pictures a floppy assuming its decent resolution, that could be a LOT of > discs! > If you are going to print your pictures, digital still isnt quite as good as > 35mm, but a digital camera with more than 2M pixels will produce reasonable > pictures. > Pretty much all new cameras these days will use solid state memory which is > a lot more compact (but also more expensive) than floppy. However, with my > 1M pixel camera, I can store 250+ pictures at low resolution on a 32MB > compact flash card, or about 60 at high quality. Of course, that is all good > pictures since the advantage with digital is you can delete the bad ones as > you go. > But if you are going to take a lot of pictures and also print them as well > as download to computer I would advise you use 35mm and have it > professionally transferred to CD unless you plan to make a habit of this. > Or of course you can do both, take a cheapish 35mm as well as a digital. But > dont buy a camera with a floppy disc drive, thats just a bad idea. > Joe
Response:
> I’m about to depart on a three week trip to England and have been really > eyeing the Sony Mavica Digital Cameras (these are the kind that store the > picture directly on a floppy disk). I would be very interested to hear of > anyone that has used such a camera on a trip and what they thought of the > results. My other alternative is to do what I have always done – take 35mm > and then scan them in – which takes a huge amount of time. Let me know what > you think about these cameras. > thanks, > jpm
So how many floppy discs were you planning on carrying around? At 2 or 3 pictures a floppy assuming its decent resolution, that could be a LOT of discs! If you are going to print your pictures, digital still isnt quite as good as 35mm, but a digital camera with more than 2M pixels will produce reasonable pictures. Pretty much all new cameras these days will use solid state memory which is a lot more compact (but also more expensive) than floppy. However, with my 1M pixel camera, I can store 250+ pictures at low resolution on a 32MB compact flash card, or about 60 at high quality. Of course, that is all good pictures since the advantage with digital is you can delete the bad ones as you go. But if you are going to take a lot of pictures and also print them as well as download to computer I would advise you use 35mm and have it professionally transferred to CD unless you plan to make a habit of this. Or of course you can do both, take a cheapish 35mm as well as a digital. But dont buy a camera with a floppy disc drive, thats just a bad idea. Joe
Response:
Personally, I’d rather take an inexpensive film camera for two reasons. I’ve had a camera stolen and damaged another on on a long trip. I can’t see taking a multi-100 dollar, heavy camera when you can get a reasonable autofocus for less than $100. I can’t see any reason why you need your pics right away, so why not scan in the resulting prints? Costco does good prints in an hour for a very reasonable price. If you really want them in digital format, you can also go to a specialty camera store and have them put high-resolution images (much higher than a digital camera’s) on to a CD-ROM, again for not a heck of a lot of money. Since very few people have the equipment to really appreciate high resolution images on their computers, digital cameras do not seem a cost effective way to go.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Another excellent alternative is the Sony Cybershot cameras that take the > MemoryStick. You can get storage of up to 64MB in a card the size of a stick > of gum. The latest models have 3.3 megapixel resolution. > I guess everyone has his own opinion, but I really like my Sony Mavica – > no, > it doesn’t replace a 35 mm, but it’s a nice complement. As for the > floppy – > I can save 9 or 10, maybe more, on a diskette, not just 2 or 3. The print > quality does not match a 35 mm, but for display on a web site, it sure > beats > scanning them in. > With cyber-storage so easily available now – driveway, idrive, etc. – > seems > like all you’d need to do would be to find a cybercafe (which seem to > abound > in Europe) and upload from the diskette, clean it off and start over. > When > you get home, your pictures would be waiting for you. > I’ll let you know how my plan works when I get back from 2 weeks in Italy. > Gail > > > I’m about to depart on a three week trip to England and have been > really > > > eyeing the Sony Mavica Digital Cameras (these are the kind that store > the > > > picture directly on a floppy disk). I would be very interested to > hear > of > > > anyone that has used such a camera on a trip and what they thought of > the > > > results. My other alternative is to do what I have always done – take > > 35mm > > > and then scan them in – which takes a huge amount of time. Let me > know > > what > > > you think about these cameras. > > > thanks, > > > jpm > > So how many floppy discs were you planning on carrying around? At 2 or 3 > > pictures a floppy assuming its decent resolution, that could be a LOT of > > discs! > > If you are going to print your pictures, digital still isnt quite as > good > as > > 35mm, but a digital camera with more than 2M pixels will produce > reasonable > > pictures. > > Pretty much all new cameras these days will use solid state memory which > is > > a lot more compact (but also more expensive) than floppy. However, with > my > > 1M pixel camera, I can store 250+ pictures at low resolution on a 32MB > > compact flash card, or about 60 at high quality. Of course, that is all > good > > pictures since the advantage with digital is you can delete the bad ones > as > > you go. > > But if you are going to take a lot of pictures and also print them as > well > > as download to computer I would advise you use 35mm and have it > > professionally transferred to CD unless you plan to make a habit of > this. > > Or of course you can do both, take a cheapish 35mm as well as a digital. > But > > dont buy a camera with a floppy disc drive, thats just a bad idea. > > Joe
Response:
Joe, we own a Sony Mavica and used it to send pictures directly from Macedonia to a website 2 years ago. It worked well for that purpose where images had to be sent quickly rather than trusted to slow and uncertain mail. However I would not pack the Mavica for a pleasure trip. The camera is bulkier than most 35mm, and while we get about 14 images per disk at high resolution, one still needs a lot of disks. It is also such an expensive camera I would fuss over it more than I’d want to during a vacation. Pictures are also taken more slowly (a few extra seconds for the disk to record) than a 35 mm, it doesn’t sound like much but it is annoying. And with the easy processing to a digital image that many commercial places offer, I would use a 35 mm and have it saved to disk or CD when you get home. Finally, we have never got as good of a hard copy photograph from the Mavica as we do from a 35 mm camera, but that could be our fault. In summary, the Mavica is great if you are in a hurry to get your image displayed somewhere soon after the photo is taken. Otherwise, a 35 mm is easier to use and pack around, and more versatile. Kind Regards, Alice
Response:
Another excellent alternative is the Sony Cybershot cameras that take the MemoryStick. You can get storage of up to 64MB in a card the size of a stick of gum. The latest models have 3.3 megapixel resolution.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I guess everyone has his own opinion, but I really like my Sony Mavica – no, > it doesn’t replace a 35 mm, but it’s a nice complement. As for the floppy – > I can save 9 or 10, maybe more, on a diskette, not just 2 or 3. The print > quality does not match a 35 mm, but for display on a web site, it sure beats > scanning them in. > With cyber-storage so easily available now – driveway, idrive, etc. – seems > like all you’d need to do would be to find a cybercafe (which seem to abound > in Europe) and upload from the diskette, clean it off and start over. When > you get home, your pictures would be waiting for you. > I’ll let you know how my plan works when I get back from 2 weeks in Italy. > Gail > > I’m about to depart on a three week trip to England and have been really > > eyeing the Sony Mavica Digital Cameras (these are the kind that store > the > > picture directly on a floppy disk). I would be very interested to hear > of > > anyone that has used such a camera on a trip and what they thought of > the > > results. My other alternative is to do what I have always done – take > 35mm > > and then scan them in – which takes a huge amount of time. Let me know > what > > you think about these cameras. > > thanks, > > jpm > So how many floppy discs were you planning on carrying around? At 2 or 3 > pictures a floppy assuming its decent resolution, that could be a LOT of > discs! > If you are going to print your pictures, digital still isnt quite as good > as > 35mm, but a digital camera with more than 2M pixels will produce > reasonable > pictures. > Pretty much all new cameras these days will use solid state memory which > is > a lot more compact (but also more expensive) than floppy. However, with my > 1M pixel camera, I can store 250+ pictures at low resolution on a 32MB > compact flash card, or about 60 at high quality. Of course, that is all > good > pictures since the advantage with digital is you can delete the bad ones > as > you go. > But if you are going to take a lot of pictures and also print them as well > as download to computer I would advise you use 35mm and have it > professionally transferred to CD unless you plan to make a habit of this. > Or of course you can do both, take a cheapish 35mm as well as a digital. > But > dont buy a camera with a floppy disc drive, thats just a bad idea. > Joe
Response:
> I’m about to depart on a three week trip to England and have been really > eyeing the Sony Mavica Digital Cameras (these are the kind that store the > picture directly on a floppy disk). I would be very interested to hear of > anyone that has used such a camera on a trip and what they thought of the > results. My other alternative is to do what I have always done – take 35mm > and then scan them in – which takes a huge amount of time. Let me know what > you think about these cameras. > thanks, > jpm
So how many floppy discs were you planning on carrying around? At 2 or 3 pictures a floppy assuming its decent resolution, that could be a LOT of discs! If you are going to print your pictures, digital still isnt quite as good as 35mm, but a digital camera with more than 2M pixels will produce reasonable pictures. Pretty much all new cameras these days will use solid state memory which is a lot more compact (but also more expensive) than floppy. However, with my 1M pixel camera, I can store 250+ pictures at low resolution on a 32MB compact flash card, or about 60 at high quality. Of course, that is all good pictures since the advantage with digital is you can delete the bad ones as you go. But if you are going to take a lot of pictures and also print them as well as download to computer I would advise you use 35mm and have it professionally transferred to CD unless you plan to make a habit of this. Or of course you can do both, take a cheapish 35mm as well as a digital. But dont buy a camera with a floppy disc drive, thats just a bad idea. Joe
Response:
I guess everyone has his own opinion, but I really like my Sony Mavica – no, it doesn’t replace a 35 mm, but it’s a nice complement. As for the floppy – I can save 9 or 10, maybe more, on a diskette, not just 2 or 3. The print quality does not match a 35 mm, but for display on a web site, it sure beats scanning them in. With cyber-storage so easily available now – driveway, idrive, etc. – seems like all you’d need to do would be to find a cybercafe (which seem to abound in Europe) and upload from the diskette, clean it off and start over. When you get home, your pictures would be waiting for you. I’ll let you know how my plan works when I get back from 2 weeks in Italy. Gail
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I’m about to depart on a three week trip to England and have been really > eyeing the Sony Mavica Digital Cameras (these are the kind that store the > picture directly on a floppy disk). I would be very interested to hear of > anyone that has used such a camera on a trip and what they thought of the > results. My other alternative is to do what I have always done – take > 35mm > and then scan them in – which takes a huge amount of time. Let me know > what > you think about these cameras. > thanks, > jpm > So how many floppy discs were you planning on carrying around? At 2 or 3 > pictures a floppy assuming its decent resolution, that could be a LOT of > discs! > If you are going to print your pictures, digital still isnt quite as good as > 35mm, but a digital camera with more than 2M pixels will produce reasonable > pictures. > Pretty much all new cameras these days will use solid state memory which is > a lot more compact (but also more expensive) than floppy. However, with my > 1M pixel camera, I can store 250+ pictures at low resolution on a 32MB > compact flash card, or about 60 at high quality. Of course, that is all good > pictures since the advantage with digital is you can delete the bad ones as > you go. > But if you are going to take a lot of pictures and also print them as well > as download to computer I would advise you use 35mm and have it > professionally transferred to CD unless you plan to make a habit of this. > Or of course you can do both, take a cheapish 35mm as well as a digital. But > dont buy a camera with a floppy disc drive, thats just a bad idea. > Joe
Response:
Another excellent alternative is the Sony Cybershot cameras that take the MemoryStick. You can get storage of up to 64MB in a card the size of a stick of gum. The latest models have 3.3 megapixel resolution.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I guess everyone has his own opinion, but I really like my Sony Mavica – no, > it doesn’t replace a 35 mm, but it’s a nice complement. As for the floppy – > I can save 9 or 10, maybe more, on a diskette, not just 2 or 3. The print > quality does not match a 35 mm, but for display on a web site, it sure beats > scanning them in. > With cyber-storage so easily available now – driveway, idrive, etc. – seems > like all you’d need to do would be to find a cybercafe (which seem to abound > in Europe) and upload from the diskette, clean it off and start over. When > you get home, your pictures would be waiting for you. > I’ll let you know how my plan works when I get back from 2 weeks in Italy. > Gail > > I’m about to depart on a three week trip to England and have been really > > eyeing the Sony Mavica Digital Cameras (these are the kind that store > the > > picture directly on a floppy disk). I would be very interested to hear > of > > anyone that has used such a camera on a trip and what they thought of > the > > results. My other alternative is to do what I have always done – take > 35mm > > and then scan them in – which takes a huge amount of time. Let me know > what > > you think about these cameras. > > thanks, > > jpm > So how many floppy discs were you planning on carrying around? At 2 or 3 > pictures a floppy assuming its decent resolution, that could be a LOT of > discs! > If you are going to print your pictures, digital still isnt quite as good > as > 35mm, but a digital camera with more than 2M pixels will produce > reasonable > pictures. > Pretty much all new cameras these days will use solid state memory which > is > a lot more compact (but also more expensive) than floppy. However, with my > 1M pixel camera, I can store 250+ pictures at low resolution on a 32MB > compact flash card, or about 60 at high quality. Of course, that is all > good > pictures since the advantage with digital is you can delete the bad ones > as > you go. > But if you are going to take a lot of pictures and also print them as well > as download to computer I would advise you use 35mm and have it > professionally transferred to CD unless you plan to make a habit of this. > Or of course you can do both, take a cheapish 35mm as well as a digital. > But > dont buy a camera with a floppy disc drive, thats just a bad idea. > Joe
Response:
Joe, we own a Sony Mavica and used it to send pictures directly from Macedonia to a website 2 years ago. It worked well for that purpose where images had to be sent quickly rather than trusted to slow and uncertain mail. However I would not pack the Mavica for a pleasure trip. The camera is bulkier than most 35mm, and while we get about 14 images per disk at high resolution, one still needs a lot of disks. It is also such an expensive camera I would fuss over it more than I’d want to during a vacation. Pictures are also taken more slowly (a few extra seconds for the disk to record) than a 35 mm, it doesn’t sound like much but it is annoying. And with the easy processing to a digital image that many commercial places offer, I would use a 35 mm and have it saved to disk or CD when you get home. Finally, we have never got as good of a hard copy photograph from the Mavica as we do from a 35 mm camera, but that could be our fault. In summary, the Mavica is great if you are in a hurry to get your image displayed somewhere soon after the photo is taken. Otherwise, a 35 mm is easier to use and pack around, and more versatile. Kind Regards, Alice
Response:
Personally, I’d rather take an inexpensive film camera for two reasons. I’ve had a camera stolen and damaged another on on a long trip. I can’t see taking a multi-100 dollar, heavy camera when you can get a reasonable autofocus for less than $100. I can’t see any reason why you need your pics right away, so why not scan in the resulting prints? Costco does good prints in an hour for a very reasonable price. If you really want them in digital format, you can also go to a specialty camera store and have them put high-resolution images (much higher than a digital camera’s) on to a CD-ROM, again for not a heck of a lot of money. Since very few people have the equipment to really appreciate high resolution images on their computers, digital cameras do not seem a cost effective way to go.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Another excellent alternative is the Sony Cybershot cameras that take the > MemoryStick. You can get storage of up to 64MB in a card the size of a stick > of gum. The latest models have 3.3 megapixel resolution. > I guess everyone has his own opinion, but I really like my Sony Mavica – > no, > it doesn’t replace a 35 mm, but it’s a nice complement. As for the > floppy – > I can save 9 or 10, maybe more, on a diskette, not just 2 or 3. The print > quality does not match a 35 mm, but for display on a web site, it sure > beats > scanning them in. > With cyber-storage so easily available now – driveway, idrive, etc. – > seems > like all you’d need to do would be to find a cybercafe (which seem to > abound > in Europe) and upload from the diskette, clean it off and start over. > When > you get home, your pictures would be waiting for you. > I’ll let you know how my plan works when I get back from 2 weeks in Italy. > Gail > > > I’m about to depart on a three week trip to England and have been > really > > > eyeing the Sony Mavica Digital Cameras (these are the kind that store > the > > > picture directly on a floppy disk). I would be very interested to > hear > of > > > anyone that has used such a camera on a trip and what they thought of > the > > > results. My other alternative is to do what I have always done – take > > 35mm > > > and then scan them in – which takes a huge amount of time. Let me > know > > what > > > you think about these cameras. > > > thanks, > > > jpm > > So how many floppy discs were you planning on carrying around? At 2 or 3 > > pictures a floppy assuming its decent resolution, that could be a LOT of > > discs! > > If you are going to print your pictures, digital still isnt quite as > good > as > > 35mm, but a digital camera with more than 2M pixels will produce > reasonable > > pictures. > > Pretty much all new cameras these days will use solid state memory which > is > > a lot more compact (but also more expensive) than floppy. However, with > my > > 1M pixel camera, I can store 250+ pictures at low resolution on a 32MB > > compact flash card, or about 60 at high quality. Of course, that is all > good > > pictures since the advantage with digital is you can delete the bad ones > as > > you go. > > But if you are going to take a lot of pictures and also print them as > well > > as download to computer I would advise you use 35mm and have it > > professionally transferred to CD unless you plan to make a habit of > this. > > Or of course you can do both, take a cheapish 35mm as well as a digital. > But > > dont buy a camera with a floppy disc drive, thats just a bad idea. > > Joe