digital cameras

From: Joe <rigdonj_at_intellistar.net>
Date: Wed Jul 21 12:26:58 1999

At 03:17 PM 7/21/99 +0100, Athanasios Kotsenos wrote:
>>I agree, the sony mavica is a great camera for $500! the built-in floppy
>>drive makes it so convenient to save files and the picture quality is really
>>good. my brother had one and used it to take pictures for my computer
>>collection site.
>
>Wo!!!
>Way too expensive for such a crappy camera.

  What! This old tread again? OK here's my reply. I've had a Sony, a
Kodak, and a couple of others and the Sony was as good or better than all
the others. Yes, the camera is more expensive but add in a few hundred
dollars for a couple of spare memory sticks and another $70 MOL for the
adapter to allow them to be read into a PC and the others are as expensive
as the Sony. I can buy disks for pennies apiece carry dozens with me. The
memory sticks are $100 or more each. If you can tell me of a GOOD camera
that has at least 1024 x 768 resolution, an optical zoom and a decent
storage capacity and doesn't require Win 95 or 98 to read the files into a
PeeCee let me know and I'll try it.

Resolution is too low and jpg
>compression is too high (very noticable).

   Resolution depends on which model you get. I had an 81 so had 1024 x
768 resolution. That's higher than I usually use to post images (800x600)
so it was fine for me.


>Never mind the fact that after a while it has a very hard time reading a
disk.

  I never had any problems with that. Perhaps you're using crappy disks.
Two days ago, I got out some of my old disks read them into the PC with NO
problems.

   Joe
Received on Wed Jul 21 1999 - 12:26:58 BST