Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Sony Mavica Floppy based cameras

Reply
Thread Tools

Sony Mavica Floppy based cameras

 
 
Crucifyself03
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-27-2003
Do they take great shots? I primarly need one to email photos or post to a
website. I will rarely print, and when I do I will do it at a Kinko's using
their photo machine. Does anyone have any experience?


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
grenner
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-27-2003
I teach a high school web design class and use nothing but floppy Sonys.
The work great and the pics are easy to upload into any computer. I chose
the floppy Mavicas because they are easy to use, take good pictures that are
great for Web use. Being only 640x480 they really will not print very well.
They are also a durable camera that can put up with fairly heavy student
use.

Greg
"Crucifyself03" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Do they take great shots? I primarly need one to email photos or post to

a
> website. I will rarely print, and when I do I will do it at a Kinko's

using
> their photo machine. Does anyone have any experience?
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Martin Francis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-27-2003
"grenner" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:3f23f775$0$520$(E-Mail Removed).. .
> I teach a high school web design class and use nothing but floppy Sonys.
> The work great and the pics are easy to upload into any computer. I chose
> the floppy Mavicas because they are easy to use, take good pictures that

are
> great for Web use. Being only 640x480 they really will not print very

well.
> They are also a durable camera that can put up with fairly heavy student
> use.


Current FD-Mavicas are higher res, 2-3mp IIRC. They are perfect for schools
where networks, card readers and USB connections aren't always commonplace.
For more aspiring photographers, they are a waste of money.

--
Martin
http://www.btinternet.com/~mcsalty


 
Reply With Quote
 
Todd Walker
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-27-2003
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, crucifyself03
@aol.comnojunk says...
> Do they take great shots?
>


No, they take horrible shots. There are much better cameras for the same
money.

--
________________________________
Todd Walker
http://twalker.d2g.com
Canon 10D ON THE WAY!
Canon G2
My Digital Photography Weblog:
http://twalker.d2g.com/dpblog.htm
_________________________________
 
Reply With Quote
 
Crucifyself03
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-28-2003
Yes I understand that newer cameras do not take as good low res images as the
floppy cameras. If you buy a 5MP CD camera and take a 640x480 shot the res
still will be too high to download with a modem.

I do not understand why many Mac people bash the floppy camera. Perhaps they
do not understand that some people use cameras and rarely need to print.

<< I teach a high school web design class and use nothing but floppy Sonys.
The work great and the pics are easy to upload into any computer. I chose
the floppy Mavicas because they are easy to use, take good pictures that are
great for Web use. Being only 640x480 they really will not print very well.
They are also a durable camera that can put up with fairly heavy student
use. >>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Crucifyself03
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-28-2003
<< Current FD-Mavicas are higher res, 2-3mp IIRC. They are perfect for schools
where networks, card readers and USB connections aren't always commonplace.
For more aspiring photographers, they are a waste of money. >>

Of coarse, but profesional photographers usually print, and the floppy cameras
are not designed for printing.

I tested the 1.2MP camera, which takes better 640x480 shots than my Vivitar. I
wa amazed how clear the photos looked for only 50K. Man this camera is perfect
for web design use.
 
Reply With Quote
 
JohnO
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-28-2003
I've been using a Sony Mavica since Feb of 99 and yes, they do take great
shots depending on which model you use and what you want it to do.

My 1st digital camera was a Sony Mavica FD-91 and used only floppies. Not
the greatest for 8x10 if you ever expected to print that size but for 4x6
and even 5x7 it worked very well. For the results from those I always
considered it a plus by the amount of compression it used. Here are a few
examples and I did have many of these printed and they are excellent 4x6
prints.

http://members.cox.net/johnori/fd91/

I upgraded to the Sony Mavica FD-95 and 8x10 prints came out very good to
excellent depending on the scene being shot. The FD-95 was the same as the
next upgrade, the FD-97, when using a floppy but also gave the option of
using a memory stick and results from that were excellent.

The FD-91, FD-95 and FD-97 all are very large digital cameras not only
because of the floppy drives but because of the big zoom lens. I've never
used the other smaller lens Mavicas but results would probably be similar.

As you say you will mostly be using these for the web and email, I'd say a
Mavica would be fine. Examples for web use can be found on my website
www.riview.com with specifc links below.

Here are a few of my links with only FD-95 & FD-97 shots. I almost always
shoot at the highest resolution (1600x1200) and then resize as needed but
shooting at a smaller res gives similar results, except when printing.

http://www.riview.com/0503/0503gal1.html

http://www.riview.com/weekly03/weekly03.html

http://www.riview.com/4sale/ ( I have printed all the photos on this
page at 8x10 with excellent results)

You can be the judge as to the web quality.




"Crucifyself03" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Do they take great shots? I primarly need one to email photos or post to

a
> website. I will rarely print, and when I do I will do it at a Kinko's

using
> their photo machine. Does anyone have any experience?
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Crucifyself03
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-28-2003
Wow what a wonderful camera! I am impressed with the results. My client knows
jack about computers, and she needs a simple camera basicially for computer use
only. The floppy camera is what she will purchase.

I do not understand why many Mac people hate the floppy cameras as well as
floppy disk drives. Their loss.

Thank you for your wonderfukl advice....


<< I've been using a Sony Mavica since Feb of 99 and yes, they do take great
shots depending on which model you use and what you want it to do.

My 1st digital camera was a Sony Mavica FD-91 and used only floppies. Not
the greatest for 8x10 if you ever expected to print that size but for 4x6
and even 5x7 it worked very well. For the results from those I always
considered it a plus by the amount of compression it used. Here are a few
examples and I did have many of these printed and they are excellent 4x6
prints.

http://members.cox.net/johnori/fd91/

I upgraded to the Sony Mavica FD-95 and 8x10 prints came out very good to
excellent depending on the scene being shot. The FD-95 was the same as the
next upgrade, the FD-97, when using a floppy but also gave the option of
using a memory stick and results from that were excellent.

The FD-91, FD-95 and FD-97 all are very large digital cameras not only
because of the floppy drives but because of the big zoom lens. I've never
used the other smaller lens Mavicas but results would probably be similar.

As you say you will mostly be using these for the web and email, I'd say a
Mavica would be fine. Examples for web use can be found on my website
www.riview.com with specifc links below.

Here are a few of my links with only FD-95 & FD-97 shots. I almost always
shoot at the highest resolution (1600x1200) and then resize as needed but
shooting at a smaller res gives similar results, except when printing.

http://www.riview.com/0503/0503gal1.html

http://www.riview.com/weekly03/weekly03.html

http://www.riview.com/4sale/ ( I have printed all the photos on this
page at 8x10 with excellent results)

You can be the judge as to the web quality.




"Crucifyself03" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Do they take great shots? I primarly need one to email photos or post to

a
> website. I will rarely print, and when I do I will do it at a Kinko's

using
> their photo machine. Does anyone have any experience?
>
>








>>




 
Reply With Quote
 
JK
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-29-2003


Crucifyself03 wrote:

> Wow what a wonderful camera! I am impressed with the results. My client knows
> jack about computers, and she needs a simple camera basicially for computer use
> only. The floppy camera is what she will purchase.
>
> I do not understand why many Mac people hate the floppy cameras as well as
> floppy disk drives. Their loss.


Many pc users hate floppy disks as well. Floppy disks can at times
be quite unreliable. I would not want my images stored on them.
They are also too small to store even one image with decent resolution
and a low level of compression.

>
>
> Thank you for your wonderfukl advice....
>
> << I've been using a Sony Mavica since Feb of 99 and yes, they do take great
> shots depending on which model you use and what you want it to do.
>
> My 1st digital camera was a Sony Mavica FD-91 and used only floppies. Not
> the greatest for 8x10 if you ever expected to print that size but for 4x6
> and even 5x7 it worked very well. For the results from those I always
> considered it a plus by the amount of compression it used. Here are a few
> examples and I did have many of these printed and they are excellent 4x6
> prints.
>
> http://members.cox.net/johnori/fd91/
>
> I upgraded to the Sony Mavica FD-95 and 8x10 prints came out very good to
> excellent depending on the scene being shot. The FD-95 was the same as the
> next upgrade, the FD-97, when using a floppy but also gave the option of
> using a memory stick and results from that were excellent.
>
> The FD-91, FD-95 and FD-97 all are very large digital cameras not only
> because of the floppy drives but because of the big zoom lens. I've never
> used the other smaller lens Mavicas but results would probably be similar.
>
> As you say you will mostly be using these for the web and email, I'd say a
> Mavica would be fine. Examples for web use can be found on my website
> www.riview.com with specifc links below.
>
> Here are a few of my links with only FD-95 & FD-97 shots. I almost always
> shoot at the highest resolution (1600x1200) and then resize as needed but
> shooting at a smaller res gives similar results, except when printing.
>
> http://www.riview.com/0503/0503gal1.html
>
> http://www.riview.com/weekly03/weekly03.html
>
> http://www.riview.com/4sale/ ( I have printed all the photos on this
> page at 8x10 with excellent results)
>
> You can be the judge as to the web quality.
>
> "Crucifyself03" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Do they take great shots? I primarly need one to email photos or post to

> a
> > website. I will rarely print, and when I do I will do it at a Kinko's

> using
> > their photo machine. Does anyone have any experience?
> >
> >

>
> >>


 
Reply With Quote
 
Dan Wojciechowski
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2003
....
> Yes I understand that newer cameras do not take as good low res images as the
> floppy cameras. If you buy a 5MP CD camera and take a 640x480 shot the res
> still will be too high to download with a modem.

....

Whoa, just what do you mean by "res still will be too high"? 640x480 is 640x480
no matter what camera produced it.

File size is what directly relates to download time. The file size will depend on
the resolution - in this case 640x480 -, whether the information is uncompressed
or compressed, and if compressed, how much compression.

As an example: using 8 bit uncompressed TIFF format - that's 3 8 bit color values
for each pixel gives: 640 x 480 x 3 bytes = 921600 bytes. Pretty much the worst
case, unless your camera happens to produce 12 or 16 bit per color channel output.
Every modern camera also gives the choice of mild to heavy compression, using
the JPEG format. Final file sizes will depend on the composition of the picture as
well as the amount of compression and resultant loss, but results will probably
be in the 10KB to 100KB range.

So a modern 5MP camera can certainly produce a 640x480 picture small enough
to send and receive by telephone modem.


--
Dan (Woj...) dmaster (at) lucent (dot) com

"Lightning crashes, an old mother dies
Her intentions fall to the floor
The angel closes her eyes
The confusion that was hers
Belongs now, to the baby down the hall"


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cameras--Cameras--Cameras wagwheel Digital Photography 1 04-01-2007 07:55 PM
Cameras--Cameras--Cameras wagwheel Digital Photography 4 04-01-2007 01:12 PM
Cameras--Cameras--Cameras wagwheel Digital Photography 0 03-31-2007 11:38 AM
Sony Mavica Floppy cameras Bible John Digital Photography 8 04-22-2006 04:18 PM
Mavica CD storge cameras helpneeded Digital Photography 3 08-13-2003 04:56 AM



Advertisments