Customer Reviews


19 Reviews
5 star:
 (1)
4 star:
 (4)
3 star:    (0)
2 star:
 (1)
1 star:
 (13)
 
 
 
 
 
Average Customer Review
Share your thoughts with other customers
Create your own review
 
 
Only search this product's reviews

The most helpful favorable review
The most helpful critical review


10 of 13 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars Good Camera
Really impressed with the range for this camera. It had excellent zoom and my pictures came out looking studio quality. Very handy.
Published on January 9, 2006

versus
19 of 19 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars Worst Camera imaginable. Not worth any of the savings.
I bought this camera for my dad who only needed a simple digital camera that was compact, easy to use, and cheap. So I thought a $99 3 MP camera, why not?

From the minute this camera was removed from its packaging, I could tell it was cheap. I at first hoped my dad wouldn't mind. But the menu/zoom functions were almost unusable and it too small of a button...
Published on January 5, 2006 by Jack of All Trades


‹ Previous | 1 2 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

19 of 19 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars Worst Camera imaginable. Not worth any of the savings., January 5, 2006
By 
Jack of All Trades (Chicago, IL United States) - See all my reviews
I bought this camera for my dad who only needed a simple digital camera that was compact, easy to use, and cheap. So I thought a $99 3 MP camera, why not?

From the minute this camera was removed from its packaging, I could tell it was cheap. I at first hoped my dad wouldn't mind. But the menu/zoom functions were almost unusable and it too small of a button really see what to do with it. The screen image was grainy and the quality of picture was not even close to my 3.2 MP from Canon. The pictures remind me of what you get taking a still shot from a digital camcorder. Not good. But that wasn't the big problem. When using the flash, you had to wait about 10 secs for the flash to ready (much like those cheap disposable cameras) and then after you took a picture with the flash, the entire camera went dead. It drained the batteries. We thought bad batteries perhaps, but after two more battery loads and only two more flash pictures taken, we knew this camera was a huge bust.

I took it back and got the $140 4 MP Kodak camera. Yes, it was $40 more, but it is easy, works perfectly, and doesn't have any problem taking high quality pictures AND can handle the use of flash like a today camera on any level should.

Avoid this low cost camera. I wouldn't even use it if it was FREE. It will bring you nothing but trouble and you will have to pay to ship it back anyway.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


9 of 9 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars Ignore the price tag, this is a worthless camera, March 26, 2006
After the first camera I got didn't work at all, that should have been my first indication. Not to mention all the previous comments that agree that this camera is NOT worth any price.

It's really cute, sure, but the monitor on back is grainy, and my screen had a huge line down the center. The flash is really bright and over exposes the pictures. The pictures I took with flash on look one dimensional and the grainy. The ones without a flash are barely visible (I was in a bright room.)To zoom, you have to go into a menu to select options. The picture is very rocky when you're looking through the view finder.

Great price, but save your money for a better camera. Not good if you care about the quality of your pictures.

Don't fall for the looks, pay attention to the comments and DON'T BUY THIS CAMERA!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


8 of 8 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars Picture quality is awful, April 23, 2006
By 
I received this camera as an anniversary gift from my company.

After taking several pictures at different resolutions and downloading to my laptop, I realized how poor the quality of the pictures were. Very grainy to be 3.0 MP. I have a 1.0 MP Kodak Easyshare camera that could run circles around this camera any day. When I viewed the pictures for this Oregon camera, if I didn't know better I would say they were taken with a camera phone. All I can say is thank god I didn't spend any money on this thing!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


8 of 8 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars Poor Service and worst Camera, February 28, 2006
By 
P. G. (Maryland USA) - See all my reviews
I purchased this Camera as a christmass gift. After 4 pictures the camera ran out of battery. Quality of the picture for a 3 MP camera is very poor. After contacting Oregon Scientific several times since their phone normaly doesn't go through, they accepted to give an RMA to return and promised to send a new one. It has been over 3 weeks and no camera as of now. Poorest customer service I have ever seen. They answer their support e-mail with an standard text message and do not even read your e-mail. Save your money and by something different.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


7 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars Oregon Scientific Should Be Ashamed, May 19, 2006
I give it one star for a nice red color.

The other reviews are correct on all points!! Even after being charged all night the battery only lasts five minutes or five pictures.

To Oregon Scientific Co. : If you can't make something right- don't make anything at all.

Sony-here I come!!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


8 of 9 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars This camera sucks.., June 6, 2006
I bought this camera while I was vacationing in NYC, as a small, compact way of preserving memories. I figured I could carry it around more easily than a standard digital camera. Like everyone said, it wouldn't stay charged for very long, and you can tell it's cheap. I didn't read the part about it only being Windows compatible, and my Mac says it can read RAW images like the camera creates, but it won't connect with my Mac. It always says that there are no pictures. Even when I take the memory card out and put it into a memory card reader on my HP printer, it says that there are no pictures. I would highly discourage anyone from even considering buying this product.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


4 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars Worst Purchase I've ever made, February 21, 2006
I think this camera is the worst camera I've ever seen. It looks metal but it's made from cheap plastic. The flash is terrible and the quality of the picture is horrendous. Do not buy this product.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


6 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars DO NOT BUY THIS CAMERA!!, February 19, 2006
By 
K. Schutte (Belgrade, MN USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
One of the things no one mentions is you HAVE TO HAVE A USB PORT (i.e. computer) to recharge the battery. There is NO switching to new batteries when the non-replacable internal battery goes dead, which it did after about 15 pictures. I purchased this camera as a Christmas present. It worked for about 36 hours and then ALL it would do was beep 3 times when any button was pushed. Oregon Scientific was non-responsive to numerous emails and calls. They finally responded after 2 weeks but by then I had already returned the camera. It may look cool but it didn't work very well at all.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


10 of 13 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars Good Camera, January 9, 2006
A Kid's Review
This review is from: Oregon Scientific DS6310-G 3MP ThinCam Digital Camera with Cradle (Gray) (Electronics)
Really impressed with the range for this camera. It had excellent zoom and my pictures came out looking studio quality. Very handy.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars Don't bother, November 24, 2006
This review is from: Oregon Scientific DS6310-G 3MP ThinCam Digital Camera with Cradle (Gray) (Electronics)
Extremely low quality pics. Short battery life. Not worth spending any money on.

I got this camera for free thank goodness. Now I am just trying to find a way to get rid of it.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


‹ Previous | 1 2 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

This product