bsevern wrote:That's more like assembled by Americans with parts from Asia and other foreign countries.

So you think that American cars built here don't contain parts from Asia and other foreign countries? Check the window stickers. I realize they are assembled here, that is why I used the term "built" and not the term "manufactured". But I can guarantee that at least some of the parts are domestic because the cost of shipping would not be cheaper. But I know that my 2 vehicles were built in Indiana- are you sure that your American car was not assembled in Mexico or Canada?

Found a Video

SBCJester21 wrote:Not only has Kodak gone bankrupt but they are Discontinuing Camera Manufacturing and Ending Retiree Health Benefits

Not to worry. The CEO and his minions will keep their benefits.
It's that pesky 1% thing again.

Purchased one of these a while back. The controls can be confusing at first, but practice will make the camera controls easier to use.

I have experienced no problem with picture quality or focusing. I am not a professional photographer, and as such the camera is only used for casual picture taking. I have used it both indoors and outdoors with equally good results.

When you order the optional memory card (and you will because the on board memory is very limited) make sure to order a Micro HD card as a standard HD memory card is too big.

All in all the camera is worth the asking price listed here.

integrator97 wrote:Is a rechargeable battery good or bad? Seems like it could be an issue if you're taking a bunch a flash pictures, and the battery starts to go. Can't just keep an extra set or two of AA or AAA batteries.

I have an older Kodak (past Woot) that uses this battery... it's no problem at all. Aftermarket battery and charger can be had for cheap via, say, your online auction site of choice. These Li-Ion batteries outlast AAs by a considerable margin anyway. With a couple of charged spares, you'll have no trouble.

radi0j0hn wrote:

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.


Happy Wooting.

John, thanks for the info, and I've bought the camera and your book! I'm thinking both will be very useful, and I will post a review for you on Amazon when I learn something new from it .

Does the camera take photos (How many?) with its small bit of internal memory, or, do I HAVE to buy a micro SDHC card to take any photos?

The most disparaged aspect of this camera is the recovery time between photos. Anybody have any recent, real experience with it?

Thanks!

wootdwoo wrote:Does the camera take photos (How many?) with its small bit of internal memory, or, do I HAVE to buy a micro SDHC card to take any photos?

14 megapixels should be around 6 MB or so (no more than 7 MB), so you're looking at a capacity of 10 pictures at max res on the internal memory only (lower resolution will give you more pictures). MicroSD cards, however, are DIRT cheap, however, $1 per GB is not a difficult target to hit.

kayakernc wrote:Not to worry. The CEO and his minions will keep their benefits.
It's that pesky 1% thing again.

Although I would love to argue politics- what is your point in relation to purchasing this product. It's not funny and no one cares about your pesky 1%.

gak0090 wrote:So you think that American cars built here don't contain parts from Asia and other foreign countries? Check the window stickers. I realize they are assembled here, that is why I used the term "built" and not the term "manufactured". But I can guarantee that at least some of the parts are domestic because the cost of shipping would not be cheaper. But I know that my 2 vehicles were built in Indiana- are you sure that your American car was not assembled in Mexico or Canada?

I didn't say that American cars built here don't contain parts from foreign countries.

It's been common knowledge for decades that they both contain foreign made parts, and are often assembled in Canada, Mexico or other foreign country.

bsevern wrote:I didn't say that American cars built here don't contain parts from foreign countries.

It's been common knowledge for decades that they both contain foreign made parts, and are often assembled in Canada, Mexico or other foreign country.

Then what are we in disagreement about?

I for one feel that all foreign products should be strictly imported, while all domestic products be exported.

Anyone know how well they do in low light?

bmstile wrote:I for one feel that all foreign products should be strictly imported, while all domestic products be exported.

So if I wanted Iron City Beer from Pittsburgh, I would have to go to Canada or Mexico to get it? I like it, it puts a nice international spin on what otherwise would be a common item. I'm all in.

I'm glad you picked up on the subtle nuances and did not assume I was being serious in making such a silly statement.

gak0090 wrote:Then what are we in disagreement about?

I don't know anymore, I lost track

mhelseth93 wrote:Anyone know how well they do in low light?

Yes. Poorly

shilayf wrote:Does anyone know how quick this is between pictures? I have a camera now and I hate that pause before the camera is ready to take another picture. I Looked through the thread and some reviews but could not find this information.

This might help and while it is not exactly the same model (M580 vs m583) it should be substantially the same specs. (From page two of the comments):

wkelton wrote:Seems like a good WOOT deal! If I hadn't just bought a small Pentax I'd be in. Still might.

In any case Steve's Digicams has a great review and all the specs including sample pics. If Steve says it's OK it's good enough for me.

www.steves-digicams.com/camera-reviews/kodak/m580/kodak-easyshare-m580-review.html

pinchecat wrote:is this a film camera they're selling here? kodak is trying to be competitive, rain man.

The point I was getting at is that they aren't competitive in the digital camera market, stooge.

Kodak never has and never would have been a huge player in the camera body or lens game, they got big with film, and produced cameras as a side market. When film fell out from beneath them, they had to try to transition into making the digital camera a full time thing.

Look how well that went, (mod: no name calling for you, either).

bsevern wrote:I don't know anymore, I lost track

Yeah me too. Squirrel!

jma07 wrote:The point I was getting at is that they aren't competitive in the digital camera market, stooge.

Kodak never has and never would have been a huge player in the camera body or lens game, they got big with film, and produced cameras as a side market. When film fell out from beneath them, they had to try to transition into making the digital camera a full time thing.

Look how well that went, rain man.

Kodak had/has some brilliant engineers. They hold 1100+ digital imaging patents.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-17/kodak-worth-five-times-more-in-breakup-with-3-billion-patents-real-m-a.html

The consumer side was poorly managed, and suffered from too little too late syndrome. Their products were designed to be easy to use and affordable. I have a Kodak Playsport video camera that I love and use all the time. This camera today is a great example also. In this economy they made some bad decisions and now they are forced to redefine their strategy. Don't think that by any means that this company is just a bunch of Pinkys making cheap cameras. They just made some bad business moves during some bad times- but haven't we all?

When I used to work at a camera shop we didn't carry any Kodak cameras and we made sure that if someone was not buying a camera with us that they didn't buy kodak.

tewkewl wrote:retiree health benefits are probably one of the things that did them in. who offers that nowadays??

True. But on the flip side, we always blame the workers or the unions. The companies made promises they couldn't keep or in many case, would just rather not keep. I blame both, depends on the situation.

gak0090 wrote:Yeah me too. Squirrel!

jseureau wrote:Found a Video

OK, but I thought it would be a video about the camera.

Seems like a pretty good deal to me. In for one, plus a micro card and two extra batteries from Amazon. Now I can retire my poor old Olympus.

Just found this email, not sure if anyone else posted this already, but just in case no one else did...

Blame it on the one-two punch of National Pancake Day and Leap Day. It seems
that in all the excitement, we got a bit scatterbrained with today's sale for
the Kodak 14MP Digital Camera.

We originally stated that the camera used an SD card. The description was
corrected around 9:46 am Central time (after you placed your order) to show that
it actually uses a MICRO SD card. We totally understand if this means you don't
want the camera anymore. Please let us know by Wednesday noon CST (02/29) if you
would like to cancel your order. Otherwise, we’ll go ahead and send you the
camera with the microSD card slot.

Sorry for the mix up and we hope it's the last one for at least four years.
Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns.

Sincerely,
Woot Member Services

you get what you pay for with a point and shoot like this. ease of use sacrifices resolution in low light, unless you really love flash photography, shutterspeed has a bit of lag so time your shots. also the "face recognition" is annoying, anything with two small round objects close together is squared up as a face, go ahead, let your minds into the gutter.

integrator97 wrote:OK, but I thought it would be a video about the camera.

What would make you think that?

jma07 wrote:That's called no longer being competitive in a growing market.

Kodak's primary market was film, and there's no profit to be had in film anymore.

There is profit to be made in film, but not on Kodak's scale.

radi0j0hn wrote:There will always be room for Ansel Adams types, but even more room for Andy Warhol image makers. In my book, I get out the crystal ball and predict the whole idea of the "decisive moment" to snap will go away. We'll soon do high speed video, freeze frame it and go from there. It's sad for some of us, but also liberating in many other ways.

Maybe for general use, but not for all of us. I'm sure cameras will soon be able to flawlessly pick out faces for proper exposure and focus (they are pretty close to that now), but what if I don't want to do that? What if I want to focus on one face and use a short depth of field to isolate it? What if I want to shoot a picture through the branches of one tree and focus on the one behind it?

4 realz, I picked it cause it looked better then the other cameras that woot had on here. I like its sleek look.

mhelseth93 wrote:Anyone know how well they do in low light?

Horrible. I gave my camera to my kids b/c it took the worst pictures when I needed them to be good. It handles photos decently up to 6-8 ft. away in almost any light. The red-eye reduction works great until you need it to work more than 6-8 ft. away. Outdoor shots are best, inside photos w/ florescent light are poor.

gak0090 wrote:Kodak had/has some brilliant engineers. They hold 1100+ digital imaging patents.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-17/kodak-worth-five-times-more-in-breakup-with-3-billion-patents-real-m-a.html

The consumer side was poorly managed, and suffered from too little too late syndrome. Their products were designed to be easy to use and affordable. I have a Kodak Playsport video camera that I love and use all the time. This camera today is a great example also. In this economy they made some bad decisions and now they are forced to redefine their strategy. Don't think that by any means that this company is just a bunch of Pinkys making cheap cameras. They just made some bad business moves during some bad times- but haven't we all?

Their stocks have plummeted...I hope they can pull their heads out of their arses to save their products. Personally, I have 2 Kodak digital cameras & refuse to buy anymore.

I can't speak to this model, but I've owned two Kodak EasyShare digital cameras and they were great in low light... at least in comparison to my Nikon CoolPix and an old (2005,6MP) Canon PowerShot.

radi0j0hn wrote:I wonder how many users will say, "What is Tri-X??"

I flashed back to the mid seventies. High school yearbook and darkroom. Brown stained fingers from the printing chemicals. I loved the smell of Dektol in the morning.

1. I suspect this is a "Kodak" product in the same way those "Westinghouse" TVs are from Westinghouse. In other words .. Chinese factory dumping coordinated with a nameplate royalty deal.

2. I've lived in Rochester NY. Kodak is not the only casualty of the American decline. Remember XEROX? Remember GAF?

3. God Bless Genny Cream Ale!!!

mhelseth93 wrote:Anyone know how well they do in low light?

An unintended loaded question. If you hold the camera rock steady, and your subject is not moving, you can practically shoot in the dark. If you mean, "Can I get action shots of my kids inside with no flash?" the answer is "not often."

Cameras with f/5.6 lenses need at least an ISO of 12800 to hit a high enough speed for stuff like inside basketball action. Wait a few years or spend a LOT more money now if you need that!

craigthom wrote:Maybe for general use, but not for all of us. I'm sure cameras will soon be able to flawlessly pick out faces for proper exposure and focus (they are pretty close to that now), but what if I don't want to do that? What if I want to focus on one face and use a short depth of field to isolate it? What if I want to shoot a picture through the branches of one tree and focus on the one behind it?

Then you should opt to spend more than $75 and Kodak would not be the brand to go with. This is more for the people (at least 90%) that basically want something that will take a nice quick in-focus picture, a decent optical zoom, with HD (720p) video; no fuss just point and shoot and let the camera do the work. The same people that don't care if it fails in a year or two, or gets stolen , or gets dropped in toilet after a drinking binge...because the investment is not very high on it. I think for $75 bucks it's a great camera, but you're not going to be submitting your photos to National Geographic either.

mhelseth93 wrote:Anyone know how well they do in low light?

Personally, I do fine in low light... thanks for asking!