[Digitalis]

So for you a computer magazine fully entitled to test cameras

They can because of their target demographic, entry level users. However they will never be able to compete against advanced camera review sites that cater to amateurs and professionals alike.

[Edgar_in_Indy]

They can because of their target demographic, entry level users. However they will never be able to compete against advanced camera review sites that cater to amateurs and professionals alike.

Agreed, and I would ad that computer magazines have a long history of covering imaging devices in general: scanners, printers, digital cameras, professional displays, projectors, etc. Some of the early digital cameras even took 3.5" floppy disks and later writable CD's, so it did not seem like a stretch at all for computer magazines to cover them.

Perhaps that time has passed, now that digital cameras are so ubiquitous, and are no longer something that primarily interest computer savy individuals/tech-heads. But the two interests still intersect, so we'll probably continue to see these types of articles.

My parents' owned some of those early digital cameras. I loved using that Sony Mavica with the 3.5" disks, but looking at the pictures now, the image quality was rough!

[Digitalis]

I loved using that Sony Mavica with the 3.5" disks, but looking at the pictures now, the image quality was rough!

I remember those. I remember thinking at the time I thought that digital didn't stand a chance against film. Over the years that opinion has gradually changed, 8X10 format still remains the last undefeated bastion of film IMO.

[Edgar_in_Indy]

I remember those. I remember thinking at the time I thought that digital didn't stand a chance against film. Over the years that opinion has gradually changed, 8X10 format still remains the last undefeated bastion of film IMO.

I had no background in photography and no serious interest, so at the time I had no problem with the pictures. And on the monitors of the day, 640x480 wasn't such a ridiculously low resolution. But on my 2560x1600 monitor they look like postage stamps.

I was just reading an old review of the Sony Mavica MVC-FD7 from 1998 (which is what I believe my parents had), and a few sections struck me as funny or interesting:

Taking pictures on inexpensive diskettes removes any restraints you might have about taking a picture. I simply don't care and if the mood hits me I'll take the shot - Whatever it may be. One time, while standing in line in Las Vegas, I focused my camera on the interesting design of the carpet and I took a picture. Now I have a picture of the carpeting of the former Aladdin hotel. This is indicative of type of shot that the Mavica lets you take that you would NEVER think of taking.

I think these types of shots are probably the norm these days, rather than the exception. I bet that the concept of a "selfie" would have really blown his mind!

The oddest feature of the camera is its five digital modes. They are normal, inverse, Black and white, sepia and pastel.

Doesn't seem so odd these days, but I guess that must have been kind of a new concept.

Strangely, the camera has a limit of 55 pictures per disk.

How many more pictures would you really want to cram onto a 1.44MB disk. Even with 640x480 images, the compression won't be pretty!

The other problem is speed of taking a picture. Click - wait and wait and wait for 7 seconds. It doesn't seem like much, but if you have limited time to take pictures you must carefully take your shot.

Kinds of puts things in perspective, huh? But at least you had the churning sound of the disk drive to serenade you while you waited. SD cards are too quiet!

[fs999]

The reminds me of the way that Pentax originally caught my attention. I was reading a general tech news site that focuses heavily on computers (dailytech.com) and they had an article about the new Pentax K-x.

Ha ! I was convinced by a test of the K10D in a french photo magazine, which, I must agree, is more conventional

[zoolander]

I never heard a positive thing about Pentax before I got interested in Pentax. I was interested in Pentax after researching lenses from just about every manufacturer, and Pentax lenses seemed to be really sharp according to tests. It struck my interest, plus I had looked at some of the image quality and thought it looked, so I went further and thoroughly researched the image quality. I went and tried out Pentax cameras in stores for a year, because I was a student at the time and, and finally bought a K-5 after I picked up some work over the break. So in the end, my conclusion was that Pentax seems to have a great camera system, and magazines and reviewers were full of it.

So PC magazine using a user rating system is completely idiotic. I want to see image quality first, and data on the lenses, and then in the field images. Peoples personal biases just taint things.

When I bought my first DSLR, a Nikon, I was telling everybody to get a Nikon. I knew nothing, and I'm sure the consumers at PC magazine no very little too. They buy a camera, and think its good, and give it a good rating. Whoopy-do ! Do they know what they're doing with said DSLR - well thats another story.

PC magazine should stick with their supposed line of expertise, and not rely on a group of their consumers to review, rate and recommend a camera. Thats just dumb !