I see there is a newer model out (I think the FD75?) which is more expensive.
Any online camera stores that carry the FD73 for a reasonable price? Should I try to get one on auction? Most are ending up in the high $200's and closer to $300. Does that price sound good?
posted on June 3, 2001 06:42:11 AM new
I've used the FD73 for two years. Great camera.
I would not recommend buying one at auction. It's best to buy it at a retail store where you will have warranty and recourse if you run into any glitches.
posted on June 3, 2001 06:47:37 AM new
As a user of the Mavica FD7 (a much older model which I purchased on eBay), I would love to have the FD73. I have used it and it is very user friendly. The problem with Mavica cameras is that to fit the images onto a 3.5" floppy, they are ultra-compressed, thereby losing a lot of clarity. The other problem is the .JPG format. While it makes sense to convert your files to .JPG before uploading them, they should originally be in a .TIF format, because everytime you re-save a .JPG, it compresses even more, degrading the image more and more.
The price you quoted appears to be about what they sell for (around $250.00). They do work well, as long as you aren't using it to take a professional photograph, because a Mavica will never look like a professional photograph.
The following is a review I found on Digital Cameras:
If you're shopping for a digital camera, bear in mind that both Nikon (http://www.nikon.com), with its 900-series) and Olympus (http://www.olympus.com), with an extensive model lineup, offer perhaps the best overall quality images for the dollar (or Pound Sterling or Deutschmark...). Epson (http://www.epson.com) also offers a good bit of bang for the buck with several of its models.
I'm not impressed with the Sony Mavica lineup; the only way you're going to get even acceptable-quality images on a Mavica is to shoot at the very highest-quality setting. I think the root of the Mavica's dilemma is that Sony chose to fit a 3.5" floppy drive into the camera body... not a very good idea (heavy weight, excessive battery drain, low capacity storage)... then, because of the tiny amount of storage capacity on a floppy disk (1.4 megabytes vs. up to 384 megabytes on a Compact Flash card that's only a fraction of the size of a floppy disk), Sony was forced to ultra-compress each image in order to get several images to fit on that low-capacity floppy, a process that results in very noticeable "artifacts" in the photo. But all is not lost: once again, if you shoot only at the maximum quality mode, you'll still come out okay.
posted on June 3, 2001 07:07:26 AM new
I have a Sony Mavica FD83 and I have to laugh at all the reviews I read saying that their picture quality is not that good. They're nuts!! I use the camera both for ebay pictures and family photos. I (almost always) take the photos at the lowest resolution (which I think is 400+ by 600+). I've sent some of these pictures to ShutterFly to develop (the family ones) into 5"x7" photos and the results are wonderful. I have them in my office at work and people were amazed - they couldn't believe I used a digital camera. (Granted, none of us are 'photographers' but we're computer geeks, so we have some knowledge of technology.) By this point, *everyone* in my group of about a dozen people has a Mavica.
Are they a little heavier than other digital cameras? Yes, because they use a floppy instead of a memory stick (or whatever) and floppies are bigger. But I just carried mine for two weeks around in Europe and it didn't both me at all.
Do the floppies hold fewer pictures? Yup, on the lowest resolution mine will hold about 25. Is this a problem? No, not at all, esp. since you can delete a bad picture and re-use the space. And I didn't have to worry about the (expensive) memory stick going 'bad' - floppies are cheap and you can get them anywhere. If a floppy goes 'bad', just stick in another one.
And the convenience just can't be beat. I sent pictures to family while in Europe from some internet cafes. Can't do that with some of the other digital cameras (since the photos need to be downloaded via cable and special software is needed). Take the pictures, eject the floppy, stick it in the computer, double-click on the image and - poof - there it is. Once you take the pictures, you can be looking at it on screen in five seconds.
Don't worry so much about the picture quality you always read about. I think they're designed for professional photographers. Go for a Sony - you won't be disappointed.
(If you re-read all the threads on digital cameras here at AW, you'll see that the vast majority prefer the Mavica. It's not a fluke.)
posted on June 3, 2001 07:46:49 AM new
i have a FD51 and it does not zoom.
it is okay by me as most of my objects are small items so i use the macro for closeup.
i like my sony because of the floppy disk,so it does not hold as many pictures but floppy disks are cheap!
i also have 2 batteries and one is always fully charged so i do not have to wait for battery recharge.
i am looking to upgrade to a camera which will zoom,and i would like to stay with sony,so WHAT MODEL SHOULD I UPGRADE TO??
I have heard so many good things about the Mavica's that I just bought a refurbished FD90 from a Sony outlet mall.
The pictures turn out GREAT and I love the fact that it uses the floppy or memory stick. The floppy is so easy and convenient, though, I'll probably never try the memory stick.
I'm no camera wiz, but I use it for my auction and all other pics and the only pics that didn't turn out good were the ones that I took with digital zoom and zoomed too close.
This url will show you what kind of pics the FD73 can take, and you can read reviews on it at www.epinions.com.
posted on June 3, 2001 08:12:45 AM new
I have the FD73 and absolutely LOVE IT! I've had other digital cameras, and this one far exceeded my expectations. I use this mainly for my auctions but also use it for personal use as well, and it is the BEST! It takes awesome close-up pictures too, which is a main reason I wanted this camera to begin with. But the overall quality is excellent.
My mother has a Polaroid digital camera and is always borrowing mine because it takes such great pics! No comparison to the other digital cameras I've seen...
posted on June 3, 2001 09:14:04 AM new
I bought my FD73 a couple of months ago for $299 from pcmall.com. If you go to mysimon.com and do a search for Mavica FD73, you'll get a list of online retailers and prices so you can compare cost.
I've been very happy with it. The best feature (for me) is that it will zoom in really close without losing clarity, so I can photograph small objects at close range.
The floppy disk is a major convenience. I love being able to just pop it into my computer and edit the pics.
I do have occasional thoughts of upgrading to a megapixel camera one day, though, because my only issue with the FD73 is photo resolution. Even on the "fine" (highest-res) setting the pictures are low-resolution and sometimes look a little grainy -- but I've found that it's less of a problem with adequate lighting. And they're just fine for web use.
posted on June 3, 2001 09:28:02 AM new
I just bought one at auction. The guy said he got it at Target and sent the receipt. [he made a good profit!]
So far I'm not overwhelmed by the quality over my $100 camera, but I haven't had time to master it. I was hoping for better resolution of text, but I suspect I am not using the close up features correctly.
posted on June 3, 2001 10:19:58 AM new
I have the FD71 and have used it for hundreds of auctions, and for use around here for personal pictures and as long as you use photo paper to print, it is wonderful and convenient. When I bought it about 2 years ago, I did check the boards, etc. and this camera, though older than the FD73 had a couple of features, that were better. I can't remember what they were. Zoom? macro? Phooey, anyway, I bought this used online and paid top dollar due to the fact that I could not find one where I was living and have not regreted it one bit.
With some photo imaging software, you save the jpg as a tif or bmp, do whatever tweaking you want and resizing then save as jpg again. A hint I learned here, so jpg is not a problem.
posted on June 3, 2001 11:25:01 AM new
i have been using the mavica for about two years now I use it primarly for auction listings and I can't imagine how it could be better
I have noticed details on pictures i've taken that I couldn't see with the naked eye.
I took some pictures last week with the zoom at my son's award ceromany and i was really impressed with the results we were about 75 feet from the stage and the pictures couldn't have been better had we been on stage.
I would recommend this camera to anyone.
posted on June 3, 2001 11:42:29 AM new
It's a nice camera but I needed more resolution as the pics would sometimes come out grainy unless the light was PERFECT. I traded up to the FD90 because of that and also because of the better macro ability that I also needed.
Please be advised that I'm not a professional photog, so maybe some of the problem was mine. But I love the FD90. It has all the features and abilities that I was looking for.
posted on June 3, 2001 07:15:23 PM new
When I bought mine about 18 months ago on ebay, I paid $400 and that was a good price because they were $499 at Walmart.
Not my name on ebay.
posted on June 3, 2001 07:28:26 PM new
I own one, I can not imagine doing on-line auctions anymore without it. The thought of scanning everything seems amazing to me at this point...
posted on June 3, 2001 08:00:59 PM new
I have the FD73 too & bought it because of recommendations from users on AW, Exec Girl being one of them. I have never regreted it for a second. I didn't know resolution from pixels, still don't, but I mastered this camera in a just a few days. You can't have it much easier than that. Buy a Mavica.
Edited for spelling....
[ edited by mcjane on Jun 3, 2001 08:04 PM ]
