Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Kodak recommendations - DX6490 vs CX6330 vs CX6200 v. DX6340

Thread Tools

Re: Kodak recommendations - DX6490 vs CX6330 vs CX6200 v. DX6340

Ron Hunter
Posts: n/a
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 04:55:59 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews,
Message-ID: <(E-Mail Removed)>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031110 Thunderbird/0.4a
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <(E-Mail Removed)> <(E-Mail Removed)>
In-Reply-To: <(E-Mail Removed)>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: Removed)
Lines: 46

Jeff wrote:

> Okay; a lot of choices here...and a huge price range.
> My wife has fallen in love with the $200 printer docking station.
> That, and teh simplicity of the Kodak camera itself. Which, frankly,
> is something that I like too. While I consider myself intelligent, I
> know next to nothing about picture taking and don't want to fiddle
> with EVERY switch on the camera.
> The main thing we want to take pictures of is our 3 year old little
> boy. I understand that shutter lag and ISO exposure is the most
> important thing in getting a clear shot with a 3 year old always on
> the move.
> My question is, and a rather borad one, which is the best camera for
> my needs? I would prefer NOT to spend $500 on the DX6490 but if the
> difference is that great, I will do so.
> I have played with the cameras in person and it seems as thoguh the
> DX6490 has a much quicker picture / shorter lag time then anything
> else; obviously it'll take a better picture with the higher pixel
> rate; I've also read some concerns about the compression. Is this
> something to truly be concerned about when rarely a picture will
> exceed 8x10?
> Thanks for your help.
> Jeff
> (E-Mail Removed)

From the specs, the 6490 has a pretty short lag time. Taking pictures
of children with flash isn't a problem (although I don't like the
effects of flash and try to avoid it). The 6490 (and most other Kodak
cameras) moderate the flash for the distance setting pretty well, so it
isn't as bad as many cameras where the flash almost always washes out
skin tones.

However, I feel that the 6490 may be overkill for your needs. Something
like the 6340 might be as serviceable, if you are willing to use flash
on those occasions where the action is too fast for available light.
Note also that when trying to capture the antics of children, the movie
mode can often be the only choice that will really catch the moment.
Don't ignore it.

As for resolution, as much as you can afford gives the best results.
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Kodak CX6200 Battery Question jstrutton99 Digital Photography 0 11-15-2006 10:20 PM
Kodak CX6200 vs. Old NiMH batteries Roger Stone Digital Photography 6 06-28-2004 02:39 PM
Kodak DX4530 or Kodak DX6340?????? eng Digital Photography 15 02-05-2004 03:44 PM
New Kodak CX6200 Jerome Bigge Digital Photography 9 12-11-2003 09:44 AM
Kodak DX6490 Why does Kodak not support external filters? Info Digital Photography 10 11-18-2003 06:33 PM