Well here is my take on this camera.
Bottom line first, I think it is a good Woot, since it is only $85 shipped. It's not a steal like some Woots, but for $85 it's a very nice camera.
I have been using digital cameras since 1998, bought two or three a year since then and have always had about four or five at the same time. I have paid upwards of $500 for some and as little as $100 for cheap models. Mostly I have been willing to pay about $350 average.
Without going into all the features [since that will take too long] the specs on this camera are decent for what it is, a low-end, budget consumer camera. No, it won't perform like a $350 Canon, Casio or Fuji, but then again, it's $85.
I think it's ideal for someone who takes the occasional picture, such as auto shows, pets, school functions or when relatives visit.
Where these budget models suffer is indoor shots where there is low light. Usually, and this is a very general rule, the more money you pay, the more likely the camera can take good pics in difficult situations. Budget models tend to suffer in low light, fast moving scenes, macro [closeup] shots, and with the auto-focus technology.
They also tend to suffer lag [how fast the camera gets ready for the next shot.]
Battery power is not a big issue nowadays since you can buy spare batteries for $10 on eBay. In the old days battery power was an issue because a spare battery cost $50 to $80. Now there is no excuse for not having at least three batteries when playing Timmy Tourist with your new camera.
If I was into low end cameras, the deal breaker for me on this model would be that it does not have an optical viewfinder. Without that, sometimes you cannot see what you are shooting because the sun washes out the LCD display. I will not buy a camera that has only an LCD viewfinder.
Unlike Polaroid who collapsed for failing to see digital as the way of the future, Kodak aggressively shifted from film to digital. They have put a lot of work into coming out with quality cameras for the consumer market. They are kind of competing with Canon and others. So on name alone IMHO you can rely on this camera. As to those who say it takes lousy pics, well my $500 Canons have taken lousy pics at times.
As you may suspect, it was not the camera, it was me. Most any camera needs to be manually set at times that the shot is complex, meaning the camera cannot adjust for all elements of the shot, any one of which will screw up the picture if not adjusted properly.
And guess what, it's no ones fault. If any of you have been on a photo shoot for a newspaper or magazine you saw that the photographer takes hundreds of pictures and ends up using one or two in the article. 75% of those shots did not turn out for one reason or another.
Finally, let me list the features of this camera that I consider decent for the price.
3x optical zoom lens with a 34 - 102mm equivalent focal range. [not the 5X everyone is going to, but this is $85].
2.7-inch 230K pixel LCD display [nice, especially when playing back video or stills]
Secure Digital / MultiMediaCards including SDHC types ["SDHC" designation means you can use 4GB SDHC chips.]
20 scene modes [use these if you are new or don't know what you are doing. The engineers fiddled with the ideal settings for the various scenes, so use what they selected.]
Kodak's face detection technology, which locates faces and automatically adjusts the focus and exposure. [This is a hot new feature on digital cameras. I don't know if it works or how well it does.]
Five white balance settings are available including an auto mode, and ISO sensitivity is controlled automatically from 64 to 320, or manually from 64 to 1600. [This sounds like you can manual control all critical controls on the camera, if you want. That's cool for an $85 camera.]
Movie mode, capturing VGA (640x480) clips at 15 frames-per-second or QVGA (320x240) clips at 30 frames-per-second, in QuickTime MotionJPEG format. [320 x 240 is default for YouTube size and is plenty for playing home movies instead of lugging the camcorder along with this camera. 30 frames is standard now. Gives a pleasing movie effect.
Sounds like it has a slow transfer speed if you connect the camera to the PC. Solution is to remove the chip and use a USB 2.0 reader connected to the PC. I have not transferred pics directly from my cameras in about 9 years.
So if you don't have a camera or are looking to get one to replace your five year old model, I don't think you can lose with this deal.