Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
280 of 282 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Not bad, but you could do better, July 4, 2006
Detailed reviews often sound negative, so I will start with the simple good stuff.
If you are thinking "I just want a camera that works, is this one OK?" the answer is yes, it's OK. It takes generally decent pictures with good colors, has been reliable for me (no random glitches or picture loss), and is no trouble to connect to a PC. If that's all you wanted to know, go ahead and buy it. If you have only used cheap film cameras before, most of the c530's drawbacks won't surprise you. The c530 is a decent camera and will make a lot of people happy. It's an improvement over Kodak's previous low-end models with smaller size, faster operation, and larger resolution pictures.
But the price of this model creeps very closely to better cameras, some of them only $10 higher, while still maintaining some of the characteristics of cheaper cameras. So here are the things you might not like if you ever compare it to a better camera...
Fixed focus:
Like a $10 film camera you used to use, this camera does not have adjustable focus. The lens is arranged so, through most of it's range, it takes OK pictures. The pictures are not "bad" but never quite perfect either. For old film cameras, this was often an advantage for people wanting a simple, fast camera. But the disadvantage is you can't be sure to get a well-focused picture at any specific distance, and you can't get a good picture at all of anything less than 3-4 feet away (you won't be able to get a good full close-up of a face). Digital cameras with automatic focus are available for only a small price increase, and often can focus and take a picture as fast as the c530. For a few bucks more, you could have nearly perfect focus on most pictures, and the camera does all the worrying.
No "optical" zoom:
"Optical zoom" means the optics (lenses) do the zooming, like a telescope. "Digital zoom" means the camera "fakes it" by ignoring the outer portion of the image it would normally take and stretches the middle pixels. So if you use digital zoom, you aren't really getting a 5 Megapixel picture. You are taking only, say, 2 megapixels (depending on the zoom level used) from the middle and muddling them to stretch them to 5 megapixels. A camera with optical zoom instead would have the same clarity at full zoom as it would for close-ups. If your old film camera had no zoom at all, you might not care, but if you get a camera with real zoom capability you will never want to go back.
Shutter response:
For any digital camera, there is a slight delay from when you press the shutter button to when the picture is taken, and if your camera is slow you risk missing those brief moments that would be fun to photograph. This is not convenient, but is unavoidable in affordable digital cameras. This camera is about average speed for it's price range, but does not have to take time to focus. In the same time it takes this camera to take a picture, other cameras are able to adjust the focus automatically first and then take a picture just by mashing the shutter button. Better cameras also let you "pre-focus" by pressing the shutter halfway, then waiting for just the right time to click it. If your dog starts to sniffle, you aim and press the shutter halfway, then wait to click it right when the dog sneezes. No such option here, because focusing isn't the delay, the delay is just slow operation.
Small lens:
The plastic window covering it is large, but the actual lens is smaller than a pencil lead. Smaller lenses capture less light, which means slower shutter speeds are necessary to get a good exposure, which means more motion blur. It also means pictures in dark areas won't come out quite as good. Technically there is more to it than lens size, and it's not as bad as I make it sound, but better cameras definitely perform better.
Harsh picture compression:
Most digital cameras will compress the image they take to reduce the file size and fit more pictures on a memory card, although it also reduces the quality of the picture. The picture is analyzed by the camera's software and all kinds of fancy math is done so the picture can be encoded into a smaller size file that still displays as many pixels. Compression of images generally works very well. A picture can often be reduced to 20% or less of its uncompressed size and you don't even notice. But the c530's best picture quality compresses your pictures to less than half the file size that most cameras do. This might actually be balanced with the lens and focus quality and not stand out, but all of these things combined make the 5-megapixel c530 not quite as good as other cameras with the same number of pixels.
No lens cover:
Most cameras have some kind of cover that slides over the lens when the camera is off to protect it from scratches or dust. Sometimes it's a fancy automatic mechanism, other times it's just a piece you push manually. This camera has a fixed window in front of the lens, so it isn't directly exposed, but you don't want that scratched either.
No sound for videos:
If you are moving up from a cheap film camera, this part you might REALLY not care about. But nearly all digital cameras have this feature. Some, like this one, don't record sound, which can be disappointing later. It's much more fun to record videos of silly things if you can hear the crash or the subject saying "OK, watch this!"
Should you buy it then?
You might still want the c530. It's smaller than some other cameras, and depending on how you will use it maybe it's fine. I keep the c530 in my car in case I need it and my other cameras are not handy, so even after all of the drawbacks I listed I still find it to be useful. But recently a lot of newer cameras are looking like a better deal. This review of the c530 is very similar to my opinion of the c300 (a larger, older, cheaper model Kodak), except the price of this camera along with newer competitors that are now available make the c530 not necessarily a great deal for the price.
Right now I think the best alternative is the Canon a430. I had this camera in mind when writing this review. As I write this, it's only $10 more. It has 4 Megapixels instead of 5 like the c530, but the a430 has optical zoom so you get the same detail when zoomed in as you do for close-ups and everything in between. Its auto focus can take clearer pictures at any distance. You can select better picture quality (less compression). All of that adds up to the a430's 4-megapixel pictures looking better than the c530's 5 megapixels. If I could trade in a c530 today and pay only $10 to get the Canon a430, I would do it gladly.
|
|
|
53 of 55 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
great for everyday use, November 13, 2006
I purchased this camera a few months ago because I like to have a camera on hand always. My DSLR and 35 mm SLR cameras are too bulky for everyday. The price and MPs were right, as well as the small size which fits into the clean pockets of any of my purses- no need to worry about lens scratch. For those who don't carry a purse and are concerned about the lens, a very small case will do the trick. The images are clean although I've only printed up to 8.5 X 11 so far. Additionally, some point and shoot digital cameras have a terrible lag time between when you push the button and when the camera takes the picture. Many spontaneous moments are lost this way. That does not happen with this camera because of the lack of an optical zoom. This was a trade off I was willing to make especially when I see interesting things in nature or people on the street. The ability to capture the spontaneous is a great perk with this camera.
Price is low enough to not worry if it gets a bit beat up.
May 2008- still using camera, still very happy with it.
|
|
|
51 of 55 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Smallest camera in the price range and good photos are posssible., September 15, 2006
I have had the camera for about 6 months and do not regret it a bit. That does not mean it is a perfect camera. First of all here are the list of requirements I had when I was shopping for it. #1) small size #2) AA batteries #3) SD Card memory #4) 4MP or better #5) $100-130 range #6) good battery life #7) no optical zoom #8) convenient and easy to use. This camera hit on all cylinders and still does. I know someone is going to say why no optical zoom??? Great question. Start up time and shutter lag is much more pronounced with optical zoom. Also, the more reviews I read on cameras that were already above my price range the common phrase went something like "I XXXXXX and the lens won't work anymore XXXXX camera is dead" It seemed to be the fragile and weak point of the less expensive cameras. Optical zooms also increased my price range and battery drain. When backpacking I do not want to pack more batteries. Would I have loved to have one of the credit card sized Exilim's with zoom and all? Sure, they were too much money and besides this camera was going backpacking and all sorts of stuff it was likely to get beat up. I wanted something solid and so far it is. The things I discovered I like about this camera that I did not know before hand are #1) the software is the easiest and best I have ever encountered. I did have some difficulty installing it. One call to cust service and he walked me through the steps of how to shut down the conflicting application and install it and I have never had an issue yet. I thought the simplicity and small size would be nice. I underestimated how nice it is. Because I can carry it anywhere and use it quickly and easily I take far more pictures. My kids take far more pictures and they take great pictures. My wife who could not use anything but a disposable point and shoot can use it. If you have not figured it out, we like this camera. Now a couple of things to balance out my review. I bought the c310 Easyshare for my son. In comparing photos I noticed a couple of things. Some of my photos would be very contrasty and his would be more balanced and even. I have read these cameras electronically boost color saturation and I think they went too far with it on my camera. But still good pictures in most cases. In low light I could not get it to take good pictures. The flash reaches about 7-10 feet and then it was all black. I found out if there was some light and I turned the flash off I would be able to get a picture and in some cases a good one. I could not figure this out until I read that the ISO range is 100-400 with auto adjustment except in flash mode. Then it locked at 140. Problem solved. Turn the camera on, push the flash control button 3 times to turn it off and it may take an OK picture. With the flash turned off atleast you have a chance. It still is not a good low light camera but most in this price range are not going to be. That is a feature that costs more. All in all, this camera is a keeper? YEP. It will never be my only camera and it is not perfect, but for a small affordable camera that can go anywhere and be ready to use at a moment's notice it gets the job done. It is not and never will be perfect nor will it be a professional photographers dream but it is mine and I like it.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
Saving...
of the latest digital cameras and accessories, the most active discussion forums 
