42 of 51 people found the following review helpful
Pics okay, camera seems cheap,
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Kodak Easyshare C195 Digital Camera (Blue) (Electronics)
Two years ago, I bought a Kodak Easy Share, 7 megapixels, for $99.00. I love the camera but decided to buy another Kodak only this time with 14 megapixels because everyone told me that with more megapixels, the photos would be even clearer. Well, that was a waste of money for me. For one thing, my old camera is sturdier and the features easier to access, the buttons are stronger and are easier to use -- even the telescopic/wide lens work better and are not clumsy, like on the the C195 model. Sometimes, my camera will take the picture (by itself) while I'm focusing and other times, the "clicker" seems to stick. In fairness, the photos turn out looking pretty good but not any better than on my older model and, in some cases, not as good. I used this camera often so I could really test it out and be able to present a thoroughly researched review.
In summary, I did not notice any real difference between the 7 megapixels camera versus the 14. Both cameras take good pictures. However, the quality of the C195 is definitely much cheaper and it frequently does "its own thing"
I was going to use my old camera as a backup and use the new one as my primary camera. However, I am now going to reverse that order and go back to my reliable, older Kodak. It has never disappointed me and the photos are beautiful.
I guess it's true what they say about change. In many cases, change doesn't mean better especially if it doesn't produce positive results. Come to think of it, I guess that is true of anything in life. :)
Tracked by 3 customers
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-5 of 5 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Nov 1, 2010 1:31:51 PM PDT
Trevor Schlicht says:
The only time you're going to see any improvment in picture quality in a 7 meg vs. 14 meg is if you blow them way up. And as far a quality, you didn't say want model your old one is but if you have a mid to upper quality model that's older and compare it to a new low end model, of course the old is going to be better. Would you expect that a brand new KIA would be better then a five year old Cadillac just because it's newer?
In reply to an earlier post on Nov 1, 2010 1:35:33 PM PDT
Victoria A. Twarog says:
My "older" model is an $89 Kodak Easy Share and the photos it takes are fantastic and definitely better than my new camera. I wouldn't expect a KIA to be better tha a Caddy because I don't buy foreign cars.:)
Posted on Mar 25, 2011 2:38:45 PM PDT
K. Hales says:
I don't think she ever said because its newer it would be better. So there was no reason for that little slap on the wrist. She said she was told the pictures would be clearer. She found out for herself it was not true.
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 25, 2011 4:42:19 PM PDT
Victoria A. Twarog says:
Thank you for defending my comments. You are correct. I've used the newer camera more and still found the quality not as good as my little $89 Kodak. I actually went back to using that camera. Considering the price, pics from both cameras aren't bad but the product quality of the newer model truly is very cheap. With so many products I have found that newer isn't always better.
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 17, 2014 7:41:23 PM PDT
Catherine Todd says:
Victoria, I was just getting ready to agree with K. Hales. Sometimes people can be so nasty in their comments, and for no reason! They could just say their piece without giving reviewers a "piece of their mind." Thanks for your review and for Hales, too.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›