posted on May 1, 2001 06:12:51 PM
I'm a moderate buyer and seller on ebay - mainly ephemera. I have been relying on my scanner for auction pics, but when I sell a nonpaper item (or even a very large paper item) that can't be scanned, I have to take a normal pic and wait forever until I take enough family pics to develope the roll before I can list the item. I'm considering getting a digital camera exclusively for internet type pics. I already have a nice 35mm camera, so I'm not looking for a top end digital camera to be my "main" camera. My questions are - how good a camera do I need to avoid crappy pictures on ebay and email? 1MB? 2MB? Any help would be appreciated. Specific model recommendations? Expected price? Thanks!
posted on May 1, 2001 06:32:40 PM
Sony Mavica! I have the FD-73 model and when I take pics of paper items, people think I have scanned them. The Mavica is an awesome camera for close ups, far away, anything. I paid $500 for it last year but I hear you can now get them for $299 for my model.
The Mavica uses the floppy disks instead of cords.
This is the 5th digital camera I've had and by far the best camera I've ever used.
posted on May 1, 2001 06:47:03 PM
I agree on the Mavica. I took a $200 Polaroid back because it didn't work on closeups to my satisfaction and bought a $500 Sony Mavica.I wouldn't have anything else..just love it.
Cardsearch
posted on May 1, 2001 06:52:35 PM
You have to decide if this is all you want to do. Because once you start with a digital camera, you get hooked. The next thing is you want to use it for family pictures and then the el-cheapo one won't do the trick.
What I advise people to look for in a camera:
1) at least 1 megapixel is the bare minimum for family shots
2) memory expandability. A good photograph takes almost a meg. How does Sony get several on a 1.4 meg floppy? With heavy compression. A mavica photo can't hold a candle to a photo taken with a real digital camera. A camera that takes smartmedia or compact flash gives you more storage in a medium that is not prone to sector errors.
3) USB connectivity (assuming you have a USB port)
Agfa has a nice line of 1.3 megapixel cameras with USB, compact flash and they even double as webcams for under $150.
posted on May 1, 2001 07:06:50 PM
I am an expert on only one brand - KODAK.[br]
My expert opinion is DON'T BUY A KODAK!![br]
Overpriced, poorly thought out, missing some very basic features, even on the more expensive ones.
posted on May 1, 2001 07:16:28 PM
Our first digital was a Reliasis 3500. It cost us $100 a few years ago, and for eBay it was *barely* good enough. For the same $100 today, you can get a much better camera. If you go low end, stay away from anything that uses a serial port (I hated this about the 3500, way to long to down load pictures), or anything that takes expensive batteries. Make sure it can take an AC adaptor.
We have the Mavica FD85 (a little more $ than the FD73) and it ROCKS. Records sound, movies (mpeg), and pictures up to 1.3 megapixels. You can hook it up to to the VCR and do all kinds of neat things (I need to figure out exacty what all this camera will do.) For Ebay pictures it's the best thing we could find for ease of use, speed, battery life, and storage (what's neater than using floopy disks?) We paid over $600 for it, but I see them on the net for less than $500 (don't ya' just hate when that happens ).
posted on May 1, 2001 07:16:35 PM
Hate to disagree but the Kodak DC4800 has been chosen as the best value by a number of magazines and sites that rate cameras. It is a 3+ megapixel that sells for the price of a 2 megapixel and the $100 rebate until June makes this the best deal. Your final cost will be in the low $400 range. As for features, read the reviews. This is the first digital camera where ALL the controls are on the outside, like a real camera. No more hunting through menus to make adjustments.
But if your goal is auction photos, this camera is much more than you need.
posted on May 1, 2001 07:23:53 PM
Go to www.epinions.com and do a search for digital cameras. You can see how they have been rated by their users. If you know the type of camera just do a search for it.
Sony Mavica FD73 was rated recommended 94% out of 146 users
Kodak DC4800 was rated 95% out of 22 users
You can also use this site to look up basically anything - better than consumer reports IMO.
[ edited by ExecutiveGirl on May 1, 2001 07:45 PM ]
posted on May 1, 2001 07:41:11 PM
I agree with fd 73 I can see detail in pictures that I take that I have trouble seeing with naked eye.
I like using a disc ,easy to upload pictures
using the disc you caqn make copies of family pictures right at the event and give copies to whover wants it
posted on May 1, 2001 08:12:29 PM
Sony Mavica FD73. Very good prices now because I think they are discontinued. I know nothing about digital cameras, but this one was so easy to use I learned to use it right away.
You will not regret buying this camera.
I like Olympus 460 or 490 because they have a rebate now for a Smart media reader.
If you want to go more features, try the Nikon line.
If you use a floppy disk, and have a PC Mavica is just about the easiest route.
I know you will find a camera with a better macro, tele, lens, image...but mavica has it's conveniences.
I am using an Olympus 490. I got it for $330 and it's an upgrade from a fuji 1400 that I liked but I wanted two megapixels.
Plus I like the fact that I can download the pix from the smart media reader.
I use a Mac BTW
Oh if you are feeling like treating yourself the Sony Cybershot 70 is a nice camera.
But it's a but over my budget.
posted on May 1, 2001 09:45:49 PM
tpetty, I have to second yisgood's advice on the DC4800.
I first tried the Kodak DC3200 and it did not get the job done well for ebay (lousy macros), but captured very nice family pics. I then exchanged it for a DC215. You get all the controls you need, but the megapixels are lower than the DC3200. It's not as good for the family pics.
I returned that one too.
I upgraded to a Kodak DC 4800 after reading many web reviews, comparing side by side pics. It gets the job done very well for eBay and if you need macros at 10X (even 17X) you can add a lens to the DC4800. The prices of the Kodak lens kits are very affordable.
The clincher was the color quality of the family pics and the fact that it's a 3,1 megapixel camera. Those megapixels make all the difference in fine detail quality. Plus, it's one of the best cameras if you ever want to take a nightshot. You'll be amazed what it will take on ISO 400 or ISO 200 with a multiple seconds aparture size. It's dark outside, but pics come out very clear.
Above all, when you purchase your camera, ask the vendor what his return policy is if you are not completely satisfied with the camera. I'm glad I chose to buy from a store that permitted exchanges within 10 days, no questions asked.
posted on May 2, 2001 03:29:31 AM
Of course, I had to chime in with my 2 cents
I just reviewed some mid-priced cameras with auction sellers in mind and I thought the Kodak DC 4800 was a STEAL for the price. Initially, I wasn't impressed at all with it, until I took it out of its default settings, and then the pictures came out beautifully. I've never been much of a Mavica fan, but the Sony Cybershot is a very nice camera as well (even if it isn't a "real" 3 megapixel camera). It's got a super lens.
posted on May 2, 2001 05:53:50 AM
I just bought an HP 315 PhotoSmart for $299. 2.1 megapixel, compact flash storage. It does a great job on family pictures too. The only drawback is that when you zoom in, your picture isn't sharp. So I'm about to spend $85 on accessories (telephoto lens, super close-up lens, adapter mount, carrying bag) so that when I'm stuck sitting a distance away I can get the guests of honor at a party to look bigger than their surroundings.
posted on May 2, 2001 06:13:32 AM
For eBay ... the key is one that makes it easy to get pictures from camera to your hard drive for editing and uploading.
I'd say the Sony Mavica is far easier than those that require a cable link to download. with the MAvica, you just pop out the floppy and stick in a fresh one. I have taken as many as 150 pictures in a single shooting spree before running out of battery.
If you are taking pictures for the Web ... megapixel is not a feature to use, because nobody wants to download megabytes of photos. I use 640x480 at "fine" resolution 20 or so pics per floppy) , edit and rescale to about 250-350 pixels wide, compress to under 50kB and upload. They look very good.
posted on May 2, 2001 10:37:38 AM
I'm a True Believer in the Mavica FD-73, too.
After borrowing friends' Mavicas for about a year, I finally bought my own. If you can afford a model with higher rez, go for it, but this is a good basic camera for getting your stuff up on the Web with no muss and no fuss. GREAT close-ups. I'm saving $$$ on film and processing (and scanning time, LOL!).
posted on May 2, 2001 03:17:37 PM
Thanks for the info everyone. It looks like a Mavica 73 can be had for around $200. I haven't quite decided yet, though.
posted on May 2, 2001 03:56:57 PM
I have a Sony Mavica FD90 which I LOVE!! I needed the additional macro ability and wanted the megapixel as well. Tried the 73 but upgraded right away to the FD90 and couldn't be more pleased.
Super easy to use and no constant battery purchases!
posted on May 2, 2001 04:33:32 PM
I have something a little different, but love it totally, it's a Panasonic. They aren't as popular because they are sooo expensive, but I bought mine second-hand on e-Bay and I love it.
The seller I bought it from sold antique pens and watches and had to be able to take minute details. He finally upgraded to a 1,000$+ model, and I got this one for $235 - great deal. Easy downloads too, just plug in and let it rip. The model I have is not easily available (I don't think they make this model anymore, and I am not home so I can't check the model #) but there are others.
I would suggest trying to find one on e-Bay being sold by a seller who is upgrading, they often have warranty left on them too. Second hand gives you more bang for your buck. We sold our scanner, didn't need it anymore.
posted on May 2, 2001 07:45:43 PM
Another thought re purchasing a digital --
I have a Fuju finePix 1400Zoom and am pretty happy with it, esp. the quality of the pix.
BUT what I wanted to mention is how much I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE digital cameras. No film to buy, store, worry about expiration dates 9or even load and unload); no film to take in for processing...and wait... and have to go back and pick them up. INSTANT results, just as soon as you upload them to your computer you can see if a retake is needed or not. No negatives to store. If you want prints, just upload your pix to PhotoPoint (or other places?) and order them!! They arrive at your door in a few days. No trips to the photo processing place!
I don't know what kind of photography you use your SLR for, but at least consider getting enough of a digital camera to replace it once you too have gotten hooked on the absolute joys of film-less photography. I'll never go back.
posted on May 4, 2001 02:58:25 AM
Do the nicer digital cameras really take pictures equivalent to a good 35mm camera? I've got a Canon Elan II (or something like that, I don't recall right now)
posted on May 4, 2001 04:48:19 AM
"Do the nicer digital cameras really take pictures equivalent to a good 35mm camera?"
At around $20,000 of "nice", Digitals can be used for full-spread glossy ads they are so nice.
But for the average photo-taking person, most technical illustration, and definitely for web use, where pictures from a $$$$ Hasselblad medium format and a Sony Mavica are both seen at 72DPI (screen resolution is the limit factor for web use) .... I'll take the digital.
The near-zero processing time, the near-zero film cost, the ability to shoot one shot or a camera-full (no film waste) and the ability to experiment with lighting and see results instantly are major plus factors.
Take the cost of a digital and divide by the cost of a photograph in your area (divide the cost of buying and processing a roll of film by the number of pictures to get a per-picture cost). That is the break-even point.
posted on May 4, 2001 08:38:42 AM
I have a Sony Amvica FD-85 and it takes excellent close-up and low-light pictures, which is just what I needed when I was selling pocket watches on eBay. My only complaint is that it only stores images as compressed jpeg's instead of allowing you the option to store them as an uncompressed bitmap or tiff. Which is to say the pictures tend to be a bit more "lossy" than I like. Of course, one of the selling features of the Mavica is that it stores images on a removable floppy disk, so you don't have to hook up the camera to your computer to transfer images, and one uncimpressed bitmap would pretty much fill up an entire floppy disk. As convenient as the removable floppy disk is, personally I think I would sacrifice the convenience for better quality images.
Oh -- and the Mavica isn't JUST for close-up, low light pictures, either! Here's a link to some outdoor shots I recently took of my new car:
posted on May 4, 2001 02:25:23 PM
Tpetty...
The 3 megapixels are good.
BUT Remember...film is molecular emulsion and digital is pixels.
So you don't have the resolution yet.
It's getting better and better.
And it's subjective. You can get better shots on a digital, I think, than most APS stuff or P&S. But to the Large Format photographer, I can't imagine digital approaching that kind of control.
I have used the Nikon D1 and letmetellyou it's SWEEEEEET!!!!
But it's so out of my budget that I rent it or am loaned it.
A lot of the nice tweaks are film speeds, great lenses, etc. More bang and more buck!
I think for ebay and family pix you won't be unhappy with a two megapixel camera.
BUT if you are at all used to seeing crisp shadow detail and having lots of control you aren't going to find it on a P&S digicam.
Go hang around photo.net and you will learn a lot. A lot.
It's sort of like here, but for photos.
posted on May 4, 2001 02:58:42 PM
Barry, what a totally awesome car!!! Sounds like you got a real deal there (typical for a good eBay-er!). Oh yeah, just to keep this post on topic, you got some good pictures with your Sony.
posted on May 4, 2001 03:06:52 PMmcbrunnhilde: Well, believe it or not, I really did buy the camera just to photograph my pocket watches (both the ones I sold on eBay and the ones in my collection), and those pictures of my car are pretty much the ONLY outdoor pics I have taken with the camera.
I got the Mavica because I wanted to be able to take pictures for the Internet and have them available as soon as I took them. When I'm taking "real" pictures, though, I prefer to use my trusty old Minolta XE-5. I've done a lot of nature photography with my Minolta, and haven't tried using the Mavica for a comparison. I suspect that due to the "lossiness" I described above, however, the Mavica wouldn't fare as well in a direct "shoot out".
Bottom line, get a Mavica for eBay photography. then get yourself a "real" [i.e., 35mm film] camera for outdoor shots.
Barry
P.S. Glad you like the car! I'm told it's a real "chick magnet", but so far the only "chicks" it has attracted are baby seagulls and pigeons, as evidenced by the little "presents" they keep leaving on my hood....
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
Years ago, I got an Olympus Infinity before taking a trip to England because I needed a good "idiot camera." I know nothing about photography, and I needed something I could just point, click, and get good photos from. It has worked very well all these years, but digital cameras are SO nice--no film to buy and develop!
posted on May 4, 2001 05:35:57 PMBarry -- I like your story about your sports car better than the car itself. Cute. May you drive it in excellent health (both of you) for a nice, long time.
).
