Snow

[jimmoore]

BIRD, My sister sent me a Polorid PDC700 $189.00 at Wal-Mart it has internal mem to hold 25 pics at 640X480 and a 16 MB card that you can put in a slot in the camera and it will hold about 95 pics at 640X480. it comes with the cd programs to install in the computer also has a reader that you can put the cartridge into and load direct to computer. Only bad part is that it uses 4 aa batteries I dont know yet if you could use rechargable batteries and recharge them in the camera. jim

 

[Bird]

Jim, I'm not too hung up on any one brand, but I sure would prefer one that just uses the 1.44 MB floppy instead of having to mess with cables, card readers, and such. And I'd expect that there are other cameras that use the floppy, but the Sony is the only one I've found. I did find, a few minutes ago, that they also have an MVC-FD91 that uses the floppy disk (for a whole lot more money).

Bird

 

[Harv]

Bird -

Looks like your question has been answered already by other, perhaps more qualified, folks than I. Have you noticed that once you're hooked on TractorByNet you feel guilty when you leave the house, that you might miss a question someone has just posted to you? /w3tcompact/icons/crazy.gif

Anyhoo, let me say this about the Sony Mavica MVC-FD73. I have no personal experience with that particular model, but I have read reviews on many digital cameras. My understanding of the floppy-disk Mavica is pretty much what you already said -- "not the best, but good enough". It all depends on what your goals are.

It sounds like the floppy disk feature means a lot to you, so you just have to decide if the rest of the features are good enough for your needs. If you just want to post pictures on TractorByNet or email pictures to your loved ones, this camera would probably make you happy.

It sounds like it has two "resolutions", 640 x 480 and 320 x 240. Just for a visual aid, I faked up 2 images to those sizes (see attachment) so you can see first-hand what you would be getting (you've probably already done this, but that never stopped me from posting a picture /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif).

The larger image might make a reasonable snapshot-sized print, but I wouldn't try to print enlargements beyond, say, 5 x 7. When I was doing photo restoration work I frequently was asked to make large prints from low-res files such as these. In most cases the customer rejected the "proof" image I created for them and then cancelled the order. Some images, however, with a little help from Adobe Photoshop did produce "adequate" 5 x 7's.

The 10x zoom sounds nice, and it has macro capabilities so's you can take close-up pictures of them hydraulic couplers 'n' such. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif The digital (LCD) viewfinder sounds like it might take a little getting used to, but it wouldn't deter me if I liked everything else.

If you want to check out one person's honest review, along with some sample picts, take a look at this.

Personally, I'm anxious for you to get a camera soon so we can all enjoy the antics and hardware floating around the Senter estate, up-close and personal. /w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif

 

[RobertN]

Hey Harv!
My understanding is:
1mp = nice 3x5
2mp = nice 5x7
3mp = nice 8x10

"Popular Photography" has a great comparison of digital point and shoots last month.

We have a Kodak DC280 at work. It's 2mp, takes nice pictures, and plugs into serial or USB. It uses a memory card, but you can load directly through the USB or serial. It is REALLY SIMPLE to use

I'm waiting for Digital SLR's to come down in price and up in resolution. That Fuji Finepix SLR based on a Niko N80 is nice, but $$$$$$$$$$ I like the fact it uses Nikon glass, and is suppossed to be 6mp. I would still like a point and shoot though, 'cause I don't want to crawl under the tractor with a fancy SLR and lens, too expensive...

RobertN in Shingle Springs Calif

 

[Bird]

Thanks for the samples, Harv. Haven't decided for sure yet.

Bird

 

[Rowski]

Thomas

Flurried again most of the day. About an 1". Pushed back snow banks to day for about 3hrs. At times the snow was (stacked) 8 to 9 feet high. Also did repair work, road calls and parts running. Good thing there are only 24hrs in a day. They say snow tomorrow night. Than as you mentioned more for the week end. Winds haven't been too bad. There has been some wind but not enough to really pack the snow in. Are you refering to the Catamount or just Bobcat? Haven't heard any seen any lately. Haven't had much time to be out in the woods snowshoeing /w3tcompact/icons/frown.gif. About 8 years ago i found a den for a bobcat and saw him out and about. The only time for kicking up the feet is when I come to tractorbynet and nurse a bottle of beer. I think in June I'll be able to relax.

Derek

 

[Rowski]

I'll take you up on the rider part, leave the shotgun to home /w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif. Hey don't tease me about snowshoing. Hopefully it will not be cloudy (or snowy) on the next full moon maybe we can get together and go 'shoeing. If you back is up to it of course. Give me call if you need help putting on your chains.

Derek

 

[DFB]

Derek, the discussion has been talking about the catamount. See the thread on "This ice is driving me crazy". I guess some of us have'nt been as busy as you.

 

[Rowski]

OOOPS!!!!!

I wish I had time time to read all the posts /w3tcompact/icons/frown.gif. I think I'm down to 50 new posts to read. But then I go to bed get some sleep got to work, come home and find another 50ish new posts. Kinda like a dog chasing its tail!! I will post those pics too.

Derek

 

[Harv]

RobertN -

Hmmmmm. I never did any actual calculations, but for my own prints I like to use at least 300 dpi (dots per inch). When I was making prints for my photo restoration customers I never used less than 400 dpi.

If we apply the 300 dpi standard, we get:

3x5 = 900 x 1500 ~= 1mp
5x7 = 1500 x 2100 ~= 3mp
8x10 = 2400 x 3000 ~= 7mp

So much for cold, hard numbers. /w3tcompact/icons/tongue.gif

Let me try reality -- my Olympus C-2500L produces 1712 x 1368 images, which makes it about a 2.3mp camera. I regularly print 8x10's, some of which have passed muster with professional photographers. How can that be? Well, it comes down to software -- the application you use for printing will most likely have the ability to scale your image to whatever size you instruct it to. When you ask it to make the picture bigger or higher resolution, it uses interpolation to fill in the gaps. That just means that for each missing pixel it looks at the surrounding pixels and makes an educated guess at what value to use. Some software does a better job than others, but if you don't ask for too much of an increase, the results are nothing short of magical. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

I use Adobe's Photoshop to prepare my images for printing, and it does a superb job of scaling, among other things. The picture that I finally send to the printer is, in fact, a 7 mega-pixel image.

BTW - I would use 300 dpi for dye-sub, laser or inkjet prints. If you use either of the latter 2, the printer must have several times the resolution of your image to allow for a good dither pattern. My $300 Epson Photo 700, for example can print at 1440 dpi.

Too much (or too boring) information? Bottom line -- image quality is subjective. Good software can improve the quality of your prints. 'Nuff said. /w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif