quality posts: 34
teenracer6 wrote:$129.99 + Free shipping @ Amazon. Mostly positive reviews.
Sounds good. Thanks for the link to the site.
OVER 466 W00T CARTFULS as of 12/19/13. You're killing us with wonderful items W000T!
OVER 7 years on The W00T Forum, since 02/06 with now 31 Quality Posts L-M-A-O! We do post quality information as do others that isn't recognized. Thanks for the 3 in 1 entire week! We're humbled. 1 additional was noticed.
quality posts: 90
For some odd reason Wally World online had (past tense) their 16 MP Kodak Easyshare on "ship to store free" for $58 with a 4 GB card. They are on the shelves for $104, which I thought was nuts, so I ordered one.
Virtually all of the "decisions" are hidden so you have to go to "scenes" and pick "P" to change ISO, exposure comp, etc. There was no AV, TV or M. This is a good thing for the Casual Kodak user.
In my book, "How To Use The Digital camera You Just Bought, (Amazon)" I mention that a huge number of my students NEVER use those setting, don't know apertures from apple turnovers and could care less.
But the darn thing works REALLY well. I may be the higher resolution. I've notices a lot of tonality improvement from 10 MP to 14 or 16.
There are even settings to emulate various kinds of (Kodak) film. I wonder how many users will say, "What is Tri-X??"
One warning...skip the Easyshare software, get a card reader and save your own files. Easyshare tends to do a lot of the work for you, but there are times when I just want so save my files to a folder where I can find them again.
Also, pul-eeze tell mom and dad or gramps that this kind of camera is NOT for great indoor sports actions shots from 100 feet away with no flash. You gotta spend the big bucks to do that, and I don't mean $300!
Oh yeah, the HD video seems to be OK too, and I hope most of the good things I found carry over to this model.
There will of course be those who once had a Kodak and it once went bad and Kodak was mean to them, etc., etc. Keep in mind that your mileage may vary.
And ignore people who simply say their photos are "blurry." They are trying to shoot in low light with no flash and don't know the difference between camera shake and subject movement...it's all "blurry" to them. Some folks resist learning the basics of photography...and in a few years, they won't have to. But right now it helps to know what is going on "under the hood" and what limitations these magical digitals still have.
acpress.com Not cute, but useful.
quality posts: 12
Anyone have any experience with these and macro shots?
oops, pardon me, i wooted