Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
123 of 124 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Great expectations 95 % fulfilled..., September 19, 2000
I've read several reviews of the Kodak DC4800 and agree with most of the positive reviews and very little of the negative ones...Now, prospective wise, this is my very first digital camera so I can offer my opinion with no previous digital camera experience. I have used several upper high end 35mm cameras in my life and do know a little more than your average shooter; with that in mind, I will continue with my review. First of all, I got much more than I actually expected. All of my enlargments and prints have been done on my HP Deskjet 970CXI printer with Kodak Glossy Inkjet 45 pound paper...some were enlarged and printed from the lowest megapixel level (.8) and others were done with the highest megapixel (3.1) The results have been much better than expected...the color was terrific and the detail was excellent. The only pictures I took which I considered below excellent quality were, for the most part, due to my mistakes regarding settings, movement when shooting in low light and perhaps greater expectations from the flash than you would normally get with a good 35mm camera...now, a couple of the reviews have mentioned that the flash and focus when taking pictures inside or with low light were far below the quality they were expecting. They may well have a point, however, I attributed these lower quality shots more to my inexperience with the camera and wrong settings than I actually was willing to blame on the camera....when I became more familiar with the limits of the camera, I was able to overcome 95 % of my original poorer quality shots...in other words, when I actually understood the limitations of the camera, I was able to take much better photos with clearly focused shots and excellent color... Now, a word about expectations; I never really counted on any camera giving me 100 % of everything I expected...it just isn't reality. Different cameras within different price ranges simply are not going to hit our needs 100 % of the time. With my zero level experience with digital cameras and years of amateur level 35mm work, I simply was willing to forgive a few shortcomings if I got what I consider excellent pictures 95 % of the time. Some have commented on the lame flash which is built into the camera...I never actually expected a lot from it so I was not disappointed when the shots taken from more than ten feet were not as good as one might expect. On the other hand, the camera does have a connection to attach a higher end external flash unit so I would tend to think that even this objection might be overcome if one were to use a good external flash unit. I would be interested in hearing some reports. Like any other camera shooting in low light, if it drops to a longer shutter speed, you had better keep it still or go to a tripod for more stability. I actually attributed a couple of my poor shots to this rather than a focus problem. Having said the above, I do consider myself a novice digital photograpy buff, however, I can tell you, if you want a camera which is a whole lot of fun and gives you excellent options to venture more into creative control, I would consider getting one. If, however, you are expecting an end all, do all, camera, I seriously doubt if you can find one on the market. Perhaps the extremely high end professional cameras can give you lots of what your looking for, however, I tend to think that even they have limitations...
|
|
|
99 of 100 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
advanced point and shoot, August 25, 2000
This is Kodak's entry into the 3 megapixel market (and some reports indicate that this is the first of Kodak's digital cameras to be designed by Kodak Japan), and considering that Kodak did so well at 2MP with the DC280, one expects a formidable digital camera, and gets it, for the most part. This is my second Kodak digital camera and I've continued to purchase Kodak because with digital cameras the camera is also the film and no one knows how to make film quite like Kodak, a la Kodachrome. The previous DC280 is a point and shoot camera only, and while the DC4800 offers manual control of many functions, it still basicaslly a point and shoot camera - for instance, with the DC4800 no control of focus is possible, and if you want to change shutter speed you have to go through several levels of menu (no less than 10 button presses to get to the shutter speed menu and then as much as another 12 to choose the speed). Hopefully, as the digital era progresses digital cameras will become more like the SLRs of old with manual control of every function and all the controls on the body of the camera, rather then buried deep in menus. (I understand Olympus is about to release its E10 which is like a digital SLR; however the price will be about $2000.)That given, lets examine the Kodak DC4800. The positives - For me, after the 3MP resolution and the 3X lens, what impresses me most about the DC4800 is the high quality, high contrast, high resolution, high brightness backpanel LCD, which is now truly useful, unlike that on the DC280. The backpanel controls have also been improved somewhat with a 4 axis "joy" button. The camera has a strap post on each side of the body so one can use a neckstrap; the wide/telephoto control is a "wiggle" switch under the thumb; and the viewfinder has a diopter control for those of us needing glasses. The DC4800 communicates with the computer through USB only (and unlike the DC280 can be used at the same time as other USB devices) and acts just like a flash card reader appearing to the computer as a external, removable drive, with the fast downloading of a reader. The front of the DC4800 lens is well protected, unlike the DC2800. The manual is typical Kodak well done, but strangely enough, as with the DC280 manual, the markings in the viewfinder are not explained. Exposure after pressing the shutter button in almost instantaneous and despite the larger file size of a 3MP file, saving the the file to the CF is considerably faster that the DC280. Digital zooom is surprisingly good, thanks to the 3MP high density. The negatives - I was very surprised to find that the lens barrel appears in the lower right corner of the viewfinder at 28mm; I don't know if this is not unusual for a point and shoot as I've never owned one before, but I come close to finding it unacceptable. The battery situation with the DC4800 is not much improved so far as I can tell, even though the camera uses an expensive (proprietary?) Kodak lithium-ion battery; the user will surely have to invest in a $80 battery and charger kit if extended and away-from-the-home use in anticipated. Like the DC280, the battery cover of the DC4800 can be knocked open by a blow to the bottom of the camera body - those comtemplating active use should secure the battery cover with tape. The DC4800 is supplied with only a 16MB CF card and the buyer can expect to spend an additional $200+ on a large CF card, which along with the $80 extra battery and charger will amount to an additional $300+ investment. The camera acts only as a CF reader and is not TWAIN compliant, which leads to lots of inconveniences in saving files. The backpanel LCD gets dark in sunlight. As with the DC280, the tripod mount is plastic and apparently not intended for serious use. One additional comment - those buying a digital camera should check back with the manufacturer for updated firmware - in Kodak's case there were lots of early complaints about battery life problems with the DC280 which were largely solved with later firmware.
|
|
|
111 of 113 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Excellent camera, October 21, 2000
After reading some of the negative reveiws, I felt I had to respond. Having used and tried many digital cameras including the Canon 3030 and Nikon 990, I can tell you that for the price you cannot buy a better camera. The problems with focusing that people complain about is that they probably did not have the focus set properly. There is a macro and infinity setting that has to be set correctly. I know because I had that problem at first but it was my fault. I use the camera in the OR all the time and NEVER have a problem with the focus. As far as the batteries, Kodak did it right. I can easily take 40 high quality pictures using the LED without recharging and the batteries are less than half the weight of 4 AA batteries. The Canon doesn't even include rechargeable batteries for $999. The controls are so user friendly that I can show the nurses how to take great pictures for me in 2 minutes. Try that with the Canon which is way too confusing or even the bulky Nikon 990. I don't understand the "problem" with the flash - it works well to 10 ft which is all it was meant for. The best part about the flash is that I can take pictures from 1 ft away and not overexpose the picture. All in all, it is a great compact 3 megapixel camera at a great price.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
Saving...
