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

Kmart sucks

pinchecat wrote:it's not about whether or not they care about me, it's about buying an american product when the rest of its competitors products are made overseas

It's hard to assume these things. There is a good chance some of the Kodak stuff is not made here. At the same time there are American cars that are made in Canada, Mexico and overseas. My Subaru Legacy and Toyota Sequoia were both built here in Indiana by Americans, and that did play a part in my purchasing of these vehicles.

dignin1 wrote:I want to get on, but everytime I try to purchase, woot tells me I am banned?

say it ain't so woot.

That can happen if you use an IP-proxy service like a public-VPN. Some of those VPNs are on Woot's bad-boy list.

This happened to me while using ShieldExchange (which I have to use to get past the firewall at my undisclosed bunker location), switched to a different provider and woot!

Karen

I checked out this camera on Amazon and it has great reviews!! I'm in for one!!

The instruction book has Chapter 11 - I mean 11 chapters, right?

bsevern wrote:I'd love to know if the AC charger is 110V & 240V as well??

Just yesterday I decided I would leave my DSLR home when I go to Europe this year, and pick up an inexpensive P&S....woot you must've read my mind

usaf1w031 wrote:What kind of DSLR and lenses do you have? If it's anything moderately good, why would you ever choose a point and shoot over it?

As someone who loves their DSLR (as well as my old film based SLRs)I can think of several reasons:
1) no need to lug around a camera bag/backpack etc.
2) less hassle in public transport (see #1)
3) nothing screams "tourist" like a big camera bag
4)easier to get yourself in the picture by holding it out in front of you vs a DSLR
5) P&S technology has improved a lot and is capable of taking excellent pictures (good photographer + mediocre camera > mediocre photographer + good camera)

Which is why I generally travel overseas with a P&S that's pocket sized unless I think I will be doing a lot of wildlife/sports shots and travelling primarily by car.

Why is it that every time someone makes a reference to an Apple product, the comments get deleted immediately?

I've had 3 EasyShare cameras and loved them all. I definitely recommend them to someone who just wants to take pictures without anything fancy.

luvche21 wrote:I never like the "easyshare" series... it makes me think of the camera my Grandma has.

Maybe your Grandma is more interested in "seeing" the photo than fiddling with settings? Not everyone is Ansel Adams. I personally love going out with an old 5MP fixed focus, no zoom Kodak on some days. Take a look:

http://acpress.com/kodakfixedcams.html

But these latest models with the higher res are really sweet!

philgonet wrote:

Hey it's time for a buzzkill on rage, these are off topic. Let's stick to the Kodak camera on sale.

In for 1

Been needing a camera since the old lady moved out and took "ours" and this looks perfect. Cheap, small, 14mp, and some decent reviews.

inkycatz wrote:Hey it's time for a buzzkill on rage, these are off topic. Let's stick to the Kodak camera on sale.

Sorry, I thought I was defending your (woot!) position... my other posts have been on topic.

referenced post deleted...

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.

Couldn't agree more. Kodak repeatedly ignored calls from internal sources to move to digital, but ignored them because they would "Cannibalize" their film market... Unfortunately, they refused to recognize the fact that they were not a film company but a company that merely delivered pictures to the end user via the medium that was available at the time.

CAsawStud wrote:I had one of the first Kodak digital comeras. It was 2.9 megapixels. The thing took absolutely incredible pictures, even in low light.

While the technology was slow, the life like color saturation was the best I had seen. I still have the camera and only recently decided it was time to upgrade because the shutter was so slow to recharge and the battery situation became cumbersome.

The higher the megapixel does not equal better pictures or details.

I mourn Kodak. Maybe they'll build GM cars...

Actually, the megapixel number absolutely makes a difference in quality and detail. No matter the manufacturer, a 14 megapixel camera will be way more detailed than a 2.9 megapixel camera. It's simple math. It's like saying that an old 800 x 600 computer monitor is just as detailed as a monitor with 1920 x 1080.

That is not to say that your older camera was not better in low light. It very well could be. However, given the same lighting circumstances, the 14 MP camera would still show more detail.

Kodak's going belly up!! As a former employee I just got a letter regarding their bankruptcy proceedings. Who are you going to call if it fails?? Their digital cameras never measured up to everyone else's anyway. I bought two of them through the years and they sucked. Wait for a deal on an Olympus.

Wifey's camera just malfunctioned and it was going to cost more to repair than this little beauty here. In for 1.

Ordered mine. Awesome camera!

bidoe wrote:Kodak's going belly up!! As a former employee I just got a letter regarding their bankruptcy proceedings. Who are you going to call if it fails?? Their digital cameras never measured up to everyone else's anyway. I bought two of them through the years and they sucked. Wait for a deal on an Olympus.

Going? Gone? Re-organization. They still have to honor warranties by law.

uttc16 wrote:Couldn't agree more. Kodak repeatedly ignored calls from internal sources to move to digital, but ignored them because they would "Cannibalize" their film market... Unfortunately, they refused to recognize the fact that they were not a film company but a company that merely delivered pictures to the end user via the medium that was available at the time.

Kodak has made consumer cameras for 12 years. I reviewed one of their first consumer 1 MP digitals back then. But,like drugs, they were hooked on the golden goose of "consumables" film, paper, processing chemicals, medical imaging, etc. I don't think they believed it could happen so fast, even though they could easily look back to the 70's when camcorders wiped out movie cameras almost overnight.

gak0090 wrote:Why is it that every time someone makes a reference to an Apple product, the comments get deleted immediately?

Wasn't Apple's Quicktake camera made by Kodak?

I bought 3 of the 12 megapixel versions from woot last year -- one has committed suicide--
but note that on them and this one the specs say 14 mp EFFECTIVE effective?
effective? while you don't really get 14 megapixels ...
It delivers a compressed jpeg only...
when the one had I was used I noticed that the jpgs it delivered were smaller than the ones my 7 megapixel canon delivers...
with little canons there is a hack -- a patch that goes on the memory card -- from Canon, that lets you tweak sittings -- like delivering raw format or adjusting the compression ratios on the jpg...
PS -- I have been doing photography since 1962 and computers since 1982
The Woot blurb says it will pick up all sorts of detail, do bad it doesn't include them in the picture...
An uncompressed 14 mg image with a jpg embedded would take up 16m on a card, that's 500 pictures on an 8g card...
my older canon which shoots a raw 6m and 2m jpg puts a 1000 pictures on an eight g card...
So I don't understand why the cameras won't give you a full uncompressed image... other than maybe it doesn't really take one?

If you are considering the purchase of this camera, you need to investigate how functional this camera is without EasyShare. The EasyShare EULA can be found at:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/downloads/lan001.jhtml

I psid a lot of money once for a Kodak e-picture frame that had WiFi capability. Thought it would be really cool to stuff photos into it from anywhere on my network. Turns out that EasyShare doesn't work that way; what the frame really does is function as a monitor into a file posting space that you create on EasyShare (that Kodak, and EVERYONE ELSE covered by the EULA, has rights to). So I was back to SD cards and sneaker-net.

Oh, to say NOTHING of the fact that EasyShare is an immediate back-door into your system...

Anyone, I am not electronically inclined, photo either; would this camera be worth getting a 17yo for just taking pictures and them uploading them to digital work on them online?

usaf1w031 wrote:What kind of DSLR and lenses do you have? If it's anything moderately good, why would you ever choose a point and shoot over it?

Simple... because it's expendable. If it gets lost, stolen, lifted at customs, etc. it won't hurt very much.

macasia wrote:Anyone, I am not electronically inclined, photo either; would this camera be worth getting a 17yo for just taking pictures and them uploading them to digital work on them online?

See my previous post concerning the EULA. It's probably OK so long as you steer clear of the EasyShare software and its baggage.

I have a similar camera from a few generations ago, if not the same.

The camera itself was pretty awesome, it was super-compact, had a decent battery life. The only complaint I had with it was that the lens sucked. Something like 2 or 3x optical and the digital zoom was junk and only useable in certain modes.

Still, switching between presets was intuitive and easy.

This clearly has a much better lens than the one I have, so assuming the rest is the same/ upgraded, this would definitely be a good camera to own.

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.

dignin1 wrote:I want to get on, but everytime I try to purchase, woot tells me I am banned?

say it ain't so woot.

Sorry about your situation, I sure don't know a thing, I just wanted to compliment that incandescent bulb hovering over your pate.

I'd try to buy it off you to hover it over my bad-*ss body-building self, but I can tell it's at least 100W from here and that would be ILLEGAL.

So, good luck and all!

usaf1w031 wrote:What kind of DSLR and lenses do you have? If it's anything moderately good, why would you ever choose a point and shoot over it?

I have a Sony Alpha with several Sony and Minolta lenses, but I don't want to lug the bulky equipment along on this trip.

gak0090 wrote:It's hard to assume these things. There is a good chance some of the Kodak stuff is not made here. At the same time there are American cars that are made in Canada, Mexico and overseas. My Subaru Legacy and Toyota Sequoia were both built here in Indiana by Americans, and that did play a part in my purchasing of these vehicles.

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

Personally, I really can't tell much difference in digital cameras at this under-$100 price point (about as fruitful as jawing about $29 DVD players).

Here, just go on features, and that's it. Really, you can't do much worse or better here.

My first digital camera was a Kodak EasyShare DX4530 (2004) and it lasted about 2 years and took good enough pictures.

Since moved on to the Panasonic TZ / ZS series.

3eyore wrote:Simple... because it's expendable. If it gets lost, stolen, lifted at customs, etc. it won't hurt very much.

Exactly! Besides it's difficult to put my DSLR and fancy lenses in my pocket!

Why do people make stupid comments that have nothing to do with the original question?

TheDogma wrote: The only complaint I had with it was that the lens sucked. Something like 2 or 3x optical and the digital zoom was junk and only useable in certain modes.

Digital zoom is not magic, it is pure marketing hot air and hype. It does NOTHING. It simply crops the most zoomed out shot and then crops it. So, you think you are taking a 14 MP super zoomy shot, but it's really only 7. Someone needs to put a stake through the heart of digital zoom and put it out of it's misery.

jmbunkin wrote:Think I know exactly what you mean,for me it was Polaroid.

I'm kind of looking forward to Kodak branded TVs, DVD players and electric shavers.

radi0j0hn wrote:Digital zoom is not magic, it is pure marketing hot air and hype. It does NOTHING. It simply crops the most zoomed out shot and then crops it. So, you think you are taking a 14 MP super zoomy shot, but it's really only 7. Someone needs to put a stake through the heart of digital zoom and put it out of it's misery.

Luckily this camera has an 8X SCHNEIDER-KREUZNACH VARIOGON Optical Zoom Lens, and I agree digital zoom is junk.

Here's some sample photos someone posted on DPreviews with this camera:

DPreview Kodak M583 sample photos

Impressive for a $75 camera!

bsevern wrote:Luckily this camera has an 8X SCHNEIDER-KREUZNACH VARIOGON Optical Zoom Lens, and I agree digital zoom is junk.

Lens name only a Vogon could love. . .

alanbard wrote:
with little canons there is a hack -- a patch that goes on the memory card -- from Canon, that lets you tweak sittings -- like delivering raw format or adjusting the compression ratios on the jpg...
PS -- I have been doing photography since 1962 and computers since 1982

Warning: odd advice?

First, if there is a "hack," it's not from the maker. Firmware hacks do exist for some cameras, but they are usually from unknown tinkerers and can brick your camera, void your warranty and make real firmware upgrades not work.

Most cameras already let you adjust compression ratios of JPGs. You need to get off "decision free" to access them. I suppose some hack could offer more compression variations, but why?

I love the smell of fixer in the morning, and some cameras from the 60's were pretty cool.

radi0j0hn wrote:Wasn't Apple's Quicktake camera made by Kodak?

Blasphemy. There is nothing made by Apple that is not conceived by a far advanced alien intelligence.

Do you see why my stuff gets deleted? No one has a sense of humor anymore.

gak0090 wrote:Blasphemy. There is nothing made by Apple that is not conceived by a far advanced alien intelligence.

Do you see why my stuff gets deleted? No one has a sense of humor anymore.

Well, actually...