Rating: 
Summary: Some times its the battery
Review: About "fredrockman's" review, (15 pics with full charged battery)I had the same problem but it turned to be the battery pack, Using a CRV3 pack, you can take about 250 pictures. Besides you can always get some other brand of rechargable batteries. For me its working great. If you have the same problem get a CRV3 pack.
Rating: 
Summary: User-Friendly
Review: This camera is a good deal. It is aimed towards the people who want to take out the camera, push the button, and not have to deal with other [stuff]. While sometimes I wish for a bit more freedom and control, it does make photography easy and accessible. Some downfalls are the lack of real zoom. 2x isn't much, and the digital zoom quickly reduces the quality of the picture. Getting a really close up shot of something is very tough also. Overall a good deal, the software that comes with it is easy to use and helpful, if a bit simplistic. I would say that getting at least a 64 mb memory card is necessary, as the included one is too small to be of any real use. I got a 128 mb card for (US)[money] after a mail-in rebate, and it holds 102 pictures at highest quality. Good quality, easy interface, though sometimes lacking in freedom to tweak camera settings. Another necessary purchase with this is 4 AA Ni-Mh batteries and a charger... so that you can have one set in the camera and one set charging. I don't recommend getting the "dock" or anything like that, very simple and quick to transfer pictures with the included USB cable. It takes maybe 3-4 seconds per picture on highest quality.
Rating:
Summary: An affordable, good image quality 4M digital Camara.
Review: I got this camera a month ago. It's cheap, very easy to use but not the "idiot camera". It provides many useful functions. The image quality is much better than my expectation except a little bit reddish. The reddish effect will let the portrait look warmer and more vivid, but not so good if you want to capture the tree or mountain. But it is not difficult to use Photoshop to lower the red level. I love the ISO setting. ISO 100 will give you very good detail. No noise at all. The printout photo is amazing. I am very satisfied with the auto point and shot of this camera, it really does a good job. But the camera has some defects need to be fixed in the next generation. 1) The LCD doesn't have the anti-flare layer, so it is very dim under the sunlight. 2) 2X digital zoom has very good effect, but no as enough as those 4M peers. 3) Seems like the camera compressing JPEG too much. The Cannon and Sony 4M camera give bigger image file (1.5-2M) and Kodak only gives 1-1.4M. I think it will loss some detail. I give it 5 stars because you can't find such a good camera with the small money.
Rating:
Summary: Great Value Outstanding Camera
Review: I spent many hours researching digital cameras.
My guidline was "the very best picture possible for the money".
This camera takes pictures in breathtaking clairity along with bright vivid color.
I have printed some of my pictures on photo paper on a HP Deskjet 895Cse. Every person that views these printed pictures can not believe that the photos were not devloped from negatives, also everyone asked "what digital camera do you have and how much does it cost". My 895Cse is just an average ... printer. The camera is very easy and fun to use. This Camera exceeded all my expectations especilly in photo quality.
Following are a few insights.
1. I purchased a Sandisk 256mb ultra memory card ... This is more card than you need. I can take 206 4MP pictures before the card is full. I recomend Sandisk ultra card but only the 128mb. (the ultra card is very fast, I can snap off pictures within 2-3 seconds one after the other).
2.The camera includes a usb cable,with the Sandisk card and XP os my pictures transfer from my camera to my computer fast,(less than one min. for 250 4mp pictures). I opted to not purchase the "camera dock" instead I purchased a "monster" battery charger that came with 2 sets of NiMH batteries plus an additional 2 sets of batteries,... These digital cameras use up batteries fast. The camera comes with batteries that can only be charged using the kodak camera dock,(the batteries only work with the kodak camera).
Even if you do not think you will use all these batteries, using the regular NiMH batteries and charger is the way to go, your batteries can be used in other devices and the charger is compact and easy to carry with you, the Kodak camera dock is larger and can only charge kodak batteries.... Each set of fully charged batteries will take apprx 40 pictures using the cameras digital view.
3. The Camera does not come with a case. I purchased a perfect case at Compusa for [money].
4. You Should Buy this Camera, Everytime I use mine I know I made the right choice !!
Rating:
Summary: Good Camera!
Review: I have this camera, the pictures are enormous and the quality is out of this world. I would have liked to see the camera be able to make 15 second videos. That and the battery life are the two down-falls of the camera. All in all, the camera is a good buy!
Rating:
Summary: Great for beginners
Review: This is my first digital camera, and for the most part I was able to operate it without even reading the manual. My 14 year old has no problem operating it either. I think this is a great camera for beginners.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent pictures, reasonable price, excellent company
Review: I bought this camera for my wife's birthday to replace a 1MP Agfa (a great camera in it's time). The pictures are excellent quality/crispness and you can easily print 8x10's without loss of clarity (with a good printer). Kodak is also great on support/repairs. My wife dropped the camera (though she won't admit it) and the thing stopped working. We sent it in to Kodak (under warranty) and about a week later had it back in working order. This camera is well worth the price.
Rating: 
Summary: Some nice features but...
Review: I have noticed that a lot of the reviews for this camera mention taking shots of flowers, landscape, etc. I think this camera would be excellent for those applications. However, having gone through 3 digital cameras of varying price and quality, I would suggest a good old 35 mm if you are planning to take photos of children, pets, anything that moves. If you've never used digital, I think this one is too expensive to use as a starter camera. Start with something less expensive and decide whether you want to dedicate yourself to digital before you spend several hundred dollars on this camera. I went digital when I had a baby, and can honestly say that my best photos have come from the many disposable cameras I've bought when I've been fed up with blurry pictures. I do like the docking station this one has, which makes it easy to transfer photos and charge the battery. If you're set on digital and know it can meet your needs, I think this is a good choice. Easy to customize exposure, color, sharpness, shutter speed. But those new to digital and looking to take action photos (action includes a child stacking blocks or even just turning his head) should start with something lower-end, or buy from a store with a good return policy. I just don't think the convenience of digital (especially a relatively expensive digital like this one) outweighs the quality of film. Good luck whatever you decide!
Rating:
Summary: Best Point and Shoot I've Had - longwinded reply
Review: I've gone through 4 consumer-level digital cameras in the last two years (bad luck?), luckily under warranty :). This is really the best. I started with an old HP 315, which was a fun camera (2mp), but very stripped down. When that broke, I got a Kodak 3900 (this fellow's precursor - 3.1 mp), which I loved. The colors were truer than those of the HP, the macro mode was impressive for as cheap of a digital as it is, and the focusing seemed to come more easily. That died on me and I had a very brief stint with an HP 715 (3mp, discontinued, a piece of [poo], that was my only choice with my replacement warranty at that time). I couldn't get it to interface properly with my computer (I work with computers, too, it just wasn't a good camera) and returned it for my 4900. Although the lens on the big HP is superior, the extra megapixels in the 4900 as well as the ease of use more than make up for it. I enjoy using the b&w modes to test out scenes before taking a picture with my SLR and it works great for that. It takes decent night pictures (just don't shake it around, unless you want some interesting effects), great outdoor pictures. The light sensor is fairly predictable. People that know a bit about exposure will appreciate the exposure compensation button - the EV values that they list seem to line up fairly well with my SLR, too.The upload time is FAST (less than a second per highest quality picture as compared to 4-5 seconds per picture on the HP 715), the pictures take awhile to store, but you can rack up a few in sequence and it'll just store them as you're taking more. The viewfinder *is* fairly inaccurate, so if you're striving for a perfect shot, use the screen (especially in macro mode). That said, it's great to save batteries with the view-finder. You just end up getting more in the picture that you bargained for, which can be cropped. With the HP715, I found I'd always get slightly less than the viewfinder advertised (not good). The 2X optical zoom / 3X digital mix would be better reversed :) but that would bump up the price of the camera. I'm sure this is one way Kodal trimmed features. Still, I had NO optical zoon on my first digital, so this is about all I'm used to. Also, after using the HP715 for a couple of weeks, I've learned to appreciate the speed of focusing, even in a slightly lower light. I could NOT get an infocus picture with the HP because the focusing mechanism just woudln't catch. It had the curious habit of always focusing on the background, even if there was a large light-coloured object in the foreground that I was going for. That's not how most autofocus sensors work and, happily, that's not how Kodak does theirs. For a point-and-shoot, I'd call this a pleasure to use. If you're looking for supreme control, it's probably not the camera for you. I think the price is well-balanced with the feautres that are offered, though.
Rating: 
Summary: I can't decide if I love or hate this camera!
Review: This camera seems like a great bargain at it's ... price. I love that it has 4 megapixils, more features than the other EasyShare Kodak cameras, unbelievable simplicity of use, and a relatively small (pocket) size. The best feature in my opinion is that you can autofocus and take a picture in about half a second, which is great for a digital camera. (If you try to take more than one picture that quick, forget it, things slow down a lot after the first picture.) I took about 200 photos in my first week with this camera and I couldn't believe how great they looked on my screen... until I looked at them at their true size (100% image size). All of the pictures are grainy when you look at them at their full size. Look at them at 75% size and they look great. What I think this means is that the camera is really more like a 2-3 megapixil camera that makes images in the 4 megapixil size. If you are printing 4x6 images you won't have a problem with the camera's resolution, but don't believe what Kodak says on the box that you can have "Crisp, clear Prints at any size even up to 20x30 poster." It just isn't true. My 8x10 prints of DX4900 images on my photoprinter look pleasing but have very visible graininess that I never saw when I printed on the same printer using images from my old 3 megapixil sony camera. I called Kodak tech support and told them about this problem, they told me to return the camera because it must be defective. I took Kodak's advice but my new DX4900 has the same problem with its images. I hate knowing that I bought a camera that doesn't really live up to its marketing and my hopes. One other love/hate thing about the camera: its images are often under 1MB in file size. They would be a good deal larger on most 4 megapixil digital cameras. This means you can get more images on a memory card... a good thing. Unfortunately, it means the DX4900 is compressing the images a lot and highly compressed images lose quality. There is no way to force the camera to decrease the compression of the images, only to increase the compression. When considering the Kodak DX4900 you have to ask yourself the question "can I be happy sacrificing image quality for a lower price and ease of use?" It is a tough question to answer. Buying a cheaper 2-3 megapixil camera or a more expensive higher quality 4 megapixil camera may ultimately be more satisfying options.
|
