posted on November 23, 2001 11:36:13 AM new
I am in the market for a new digital camera. I was looking at the Sony Mavica and was really impressed. Are there any cameras that are comparable to the mavica, or should i just go with that one? What would all of you ebayers out there reccomend. I dont want it to break me but i also dont want crappy pictures. PLEASE HELP!!!!!!!
posted on November 23, 2001 11:51:52 AM new
I purchased the Sony Mavica 2 years ago and it was the best purchase I ever made. It has paid for itself over and over again with the great photos it takes. Also very easy to use.
posted on November 23, 2001 01:03:06 PM new
A friend of mine and my uncle have the Mavica. It is a good camera. But it really depends on what you are going to use it for.
If all you want it for is to take pics for the auctions. Or maybe close up shots. It will be fine. But if you want to use it for all kinds of pictures I am afraid you will be disappointed. Especially if you want to print them out and do enlargements and photo editing.
The one they have only takes shots in 640x480. They telephoto and all that, zoom and whatnot, but it is still just 640x480. This is not good enough if you want to take pictures, of say, you child playing ball, or things like that. They won't be clear enough. And if you want to print them out they will print out at about a 3x5 or maybe 4x6, but I don't think quite 4x6, and if you try to make an 8x10 out of them they will lose clarity in a big way.
I bought an Olympus 490z about a year ago. I now use this camera instead of my expensive 35mm. It takes shots in 1600x1200 and an image will not even print out on one sheet of paper. You have to size it down. When you do this, you don't lose the clarity.
I can't say enough about it. I shopped long and hard before I settled on this one, and I love it. I have seen it in the last few months even cheaper than the Mavica.
It uses a smart card, not a disk. A 32 meg card holds 64 High Resolution pictures. A LOT more than that at a lower resolution. But I never use the lower one. I like them to be the best they can be.
Some people like the convience of the disk that you just pop in and out of the "a"Drive, but they don't realize the picture quality they are missing by that convience.
I have a picture album that I have made myself with the pictures from this camera and people can't believe I did them myself.
So it really just depends on what you want it for.
Maybe they have ones that take pictures in a larger format, I don't know, maybe someone else will be able to tell you that.
http://julieswoodcrafts.50megs.com
[ edited by jwoodcrafts on Nov 23, 2001 01:05 PM ]
[ edited by jwoodcrafts on Nov 23, 2001 01:07 PM ]
posted on November 23, 2001 01:26:05 PM new
Hi - I have a Mavica (I think it's an 83FD?) that I bought a year-and-a-half ago. Wonderful camera. The 640x480 resolution someone mentioned is the lowest resolution on my camera. It makes a great 4x6 photo and a fine 5x7 photo. I've gotten numerous compliments on the picture quality. You can fit approx. 25 pictures per diskette.
I use the higher resolutions very infrequently. I remember that the highest resolution only fits about 3 pictures per diskette. But for auction photos and your run-of-the-mill family pictures, I always use the low resolution.
I really love the Mavica. I'm constantly amazed that it doesn't get higher ratings. I think the rating people are more concerned with cutting-edge technology. Heck, I don't *need* a 4-megapixel camera - maybe it's good for a professional photographer but not necessary for most people.
posted on November 23, 2001 01:36:36 PM new
I think the one I mentioned is 73pd. But I am not completely sure about that.
I know they have said it only does the 4x6 or smaller.
Like I said before, it depends on what you want to use it for. If really good clarity and mostly only close up shots is all you need it for than it is a good choice.
But if you want a picture of your child on the pitchers mound from the sidelines, you need something better.
I personally wanted do away with using film entirely. It has worked out great.
posted on November 23, 2001 02:41:31 PM new
I have the Sony mavica MVC-FD85 and the 640 by 480 is the lowest resolution. The highest is 1280 by 960 and it makes great 8 x 10 printouts with no distortion what so ever. It is really nice for doing auctions. Snap the picture, pop the disk in the computer and upload it in little or no time at all. You get real good color and clarity with out any problems. If I were to buy another digital I would buy a Sony again.
* http://www.romahawk.com
posted on November 24, 2001 01:12:39 AM new
I have a Kodak DC-210 Plus. It takes good pictures but is finicky about lighting. The DC-210 Plus uses the proprietary Kodak FPX (FlashPix) format, which has a varying level of compression. I can transfer an FPX file into LivePix photo editor (which supports FPX) and save it at about 4 Mb. I can then open it and save it in Photoshop format at 17 Mb. That's right, 17 Mb with no loss of quality. Try to fit 25 of those on a floppy disk. Anyhoo, I'm not hot on the Mavica. Tried it, didn't like the pics. But it does do good close-ups.
Print resolution is 300 dpi. So if your camera takes pictures that are 1200 by 1800 pixels (2.16 megapixels), the picture size is 4"x6". Try to print bigger, you lose quality. No way a single megapixel camera is going to take good 5"x7" pics.
I don't know what format Mavicas use now, but if your output is JPG format, remember that every time you save a JPG (for example, after cropping) you will lose quality. So try to find a camera that saves in a format other than JPG. Also, get a camera that has optical zoom, which is more accurate than digital zoom.
I paid $500 for my camera several years ago. I recently saw it on clearance for $99. Ouch.
Check out C|NET's www.computers.com for comparative reviews.
I have a Sony Mavica FD-73 and it works great! I recently sold my 35mm camera and use the Mavica now for all shots.
Yes, it can print really nice 4x6 prints. I have had some printed from Photoisland.com and they came out great.
It is not the super duper camera with many megapixels. If you need that, Sony has some that can handle that, too.
I found that the light meter (built in) works like a charm. Be sure if you get a Mavica that you experiment with it. I will sometimes focus on a a window and then hold the press button so I can get a silhoutte (spelling?) or I will focus on somewhere else in the room and hold the button and get a different look.
The Mavica also has black and white, sepia, and two other modes I can not think of right now.
Check out Epinions.com for comments on the Mavica. I think you will like it and the price is right.
posted on November 30, 2001 10:53:36 PM new
I highly recommend buying a Nikon Coolpix.
I have the 800 model, and it turned out to be a great investment. I have taken well over 20,000 photos with it and it still works like great, although I should mention that after about 11 months of heavy use the autofocus stopped working. Nikon quickly repaired it under warranty.
More features than any of the other brands I have seen. Easy to use menus. High degree of programability and lots of choices. Takes great close ups.
Don't worry about the amount of megapixels if you are mainly going to use it for auctions- you will be using the lower resolutions anyway. The Coolpix 800 is 1.2 megapixels but I almost never use anything but the lower VGA settings.
Buy new- you never know what kind of problems a used digital camera may have.
posted on December 1, 2001 10:37:42 AM new
If all you want the digital camera to do is take pictures of auction items in a static, fixed distance setting, I'd recommend getting the cheapest possible. I bought a no-name digital camera for pocket change and have it set up on a home-made frame with a platform for the item I'm photographing. Works just fine for auction stuff. But if you are looking for an all-purpose camera, I agree with those who have recommended the Sony. And you can't go wrong with a Nikon, either, if you want to spend the money.
posted on December 1, 2001 11:07:44 AM new
I've been doing some research on this, and found that in the under-$400 range, the Canon Powershot A20 is excellent. It's a 2.1 megapixel model with lots of bells and whistles, and will handle many photo needs aside from just auction pictures.
Everybody has raved so about the Mavica that it was my first choice. But after researching the other available cameras, I think I would go with the Canon. Prices keep dropping on these electronic goodies, so you get more for your money the longer you can hold off.
posted on December 1, 2001 12:52:59 PM new
i have heard that all these sony mavica fd cameras with floppy disks will soon be phased out .
they will not make any more woth floppy disks.the cybershot will be the replacement.
i have a mavica fd 51 which is no longer made ,the problem is it does not zoom.true most of my pictures are closeups and for auctions,but i am looking for camera which zooms and can produce fine details,i think pictures does speak a thousand words,if you have good lighting and fine details,it sells better.
so what should i do?i dont want a fd73 which is a small improvement over what i have,i like the ease of floppy disk,and i dont want to spend more than 800 dollars ??
also i like to stay with sony if i can??
does any of you use blue light bulb,instead of clear crystal light bulb??i heard this is what professional use and it costs 8 dollars and last 6 hours,kind of expensive??
