I got an FD-91 from local retailer (Fry's in So. Cal) for $750 and tried it for a few weeks to compare w/ my FD-7. I LOVED the features! The zoom, the spot metering, white balance, movies and viewfinder. But, I saw no improvement in basic pix quality over my FD-7 when reduced to same size. Still see mottling of colors (I assume that's the JPEG working) and unclear edges. It wasnt worth the $ and I hated to give it back, but did. So, has anyone seen pix from the FD-95 and is it better than the 91 in basic pix quality? Any thoughts on the 505 or the D770 or similar products by other manufacturers, for someone like me?

I'm mostly interested in using the camera for web pix. Not ready to give up my ol' Oly OM-4 yet for big pix. I'm an advanced amateur who's computer and techno-toy savvy, so buttons & settings arent a problem and I know how to use manual options and I like some control. Any recommendations on what to try if I can see the imperfections from the FD-91 but am not a seasoned pro?

Also, on the pull down "category" list for this page, why is "Mfr - Sony" not an option?

Thanks in advance

-- Phil Wells (pwells@znet.com), May 10, 2000

Answers

Phil:
I think you would find the picture quality of the 770 only marginally better than the 91, but the camera is designed for people who demand more manual controls (pro's and pro-sumers). The 95 will have noticably better pictures - but that's speculation based on publishes specs. If you didn't see any appreciable difference between the 640 X 480 images of the FD-7 and the 1024 X 768 of the FD-91 then I suspect a step to the 95 might be noticable to you (again - based on the specs). Remember the Sony Mavica line is pretty much geared toward people who want a host of features such as:

• 10X optical zoon
• Image stabilization
• voice memo mode
• mpg movie mode
• the FD-91 and 95 offer LCD viewer and LCD viewfinders

The 505 (wait for the 505V) and the newer S70 are geared for those who want the best resolution output. These cameras really have tremendous resolution and excellent image quality overall. See the reviews on this site.
IR Sony S70 Review
The 505V and the S70, however, do not offer the manual controls the 91, 95 and 770 offer.

Des

-- Dan Desjardins (dan.desjardins@avstarnews.com), May 10, 2000.

One modification - the 505V does offer a nice manual focus control - a real plus in my book. But I want a viewfinder....

-- Dan Desjardins (dan.desjardins@avstarnews.com), May 10, 2000.

Even the FD-90 is a nice step up, its smaller and provides better image quality than a FD91 at a lesser cost. One thing thats very cool about the FD90 is that the recycle time is much shorter since it uses the new 4x Floppy technology. I've never heard a floppy drive move so fast, it records the images in half the time of most other Mavica's. It also gives you manual focus, Macro, and other good stuff. I haven't seen the FD95 yet but it should be pretty killer based on the specs. I sell many FD91's just because the zoom is unstoppable compared to anything else out and the FD95 is going to be a better camera (hopefully with less of that nasty JPEG'ing) and a bit smaller.

-- Cis Daniels (danfla@gte.net), May 11, 2000.

We have a 505 on our fire department. I like the quality of the pictures and with a floppy card, down loading is fast. The only two things that I don't like is the small view finder. Outside it is hard see and I miss using the 3.5 floppy disks. I am waiting to see the md 95 because I liked the 91 the cops use.

-- Captain Wunsch (lwunsch@ci.fond-du-lac.wi.us), May 11, 2000.

I have owned the 7, 71, 91 and now the 95. The 95 has significant image improvement if you can get a true 1600 x 1200 to print near that resolution. However, if you are mainly interested in web photography you can get by with a $100 camera in my estimation. The model 7 will be fine if you don't need flash. The 95 has made significant strides in low light exposures which is a problem for ALL models of digital cameras so far. However, if you are really a tech or computer crazy...watch for the Sony MVC CD1000 which uses a 77mmCD R as the recording medium. They are due in August (and I just got that 95). Hope that helps.

-- Tony Hall (Thebtls@aol.com), June 23, 2000.

Tony,

I just found out about the 1000. I had purchased a 95 and was not thrilled with it, almost totally due to the high-JPEG compression that, to my knowledge, hasnt changed since my FD-7. Even when viewed with a web browser, I can see compression artifacts plainly in its pix at any size. I compared the pix to those taken by a much cheaper Kodak unit and the Kodak's were better, at least in this regard. The 1000's approx 7:1 vs the 95 (et al) 18:1 is exciting, and the straight TIFF mode means I can convert the 1000's pix to JPEG (for the Web) on the PC without going thru JPEG TWICE.

Fortunately, I get to return the 95 within 30 days for a refund, so I did just that. After viewing pre-production reviews at...

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/CD1K/CD1KFLP.HTM and http://www.steves-digicams.com/cd1000.html

...I feel sure that the 1000 will be worth the wait and the extra coupla-hundred bucks. I don't care about the size too much. Somehow, I like a camera that's got a lot of room to hold, that looks like a real pro-camera, not a point-n-shoot. The 91, 95, and 1000, and DSC-770 just look COOL to me (which shows that I, too, am subject to irrational consumer whims!) Also, though I'm no pro, I can and do put the "buttons" to use. And, owning a PowerMac G4 with NO FLOOPY DRIVE, the CD-R approach is ideal AND universal.

There may be a $100 camera that will take 640x480 pix with decent color fidelity and minimal distorion and artifacts, but it ain't my FD-7, and I don't know of it, and I'd rather have one good expensive camera than two medium priced ones.

BTW, how do you post a response to a message on this board? All I could do was post a response to MYSELF, not to you. So, I'm going to post a copy of this letter in case anyone else cares what I have to say!

Thanks, kindly, for your comments

Phil Wells San Diego USA

-- Phil Wells (pwells@znet.com), June 25, 2000.

Phil, I recently purchased an FD 95 after several months of soul searching research and I an vey happy with it. I had my sights set on the Sony 505 when, cautious as ever, I went to the reseller to con them into a test run on the 505, I saw the FD 95 for the first time and really liked the options it affords such as floppy disk use as well as memory stick, viewfinder, LCD screen etc. After much research (needlessly compounded by the fact that I misread the model number as a 99, not 95)I chose the 95. I took a couple of floppys with me and they allowed me to take some test shots outside with the demo camera for review at home. After I bought it, I was initially dissapointed with the picture quality on the computer until I printed a few 8x10s. Wow, are they ever good. My point here is that if you are looking for something primarily for web page work, the quality of the image is only going to be as good as the monitor that it is viewed on, but if prints are what your after, try to run as many shots from as many different cameras as possible through your own gear. I know that with all the changing memory formats this may be a little tough, but if someone wants your money, they should try to accomodate you. Let me know how you make out. Larry

-- Larry Yerxa (larz@cybertours.com), June 25, 2000.