21 Jul
1999
21 Jul
'99
5:26 a.m.
At 03:17 PM 7/21/99 +0100, Athanasios Kotsenos wrote:
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
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. 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