«

"Chris Mayhew" wrote
| "Nicholas Sherlock" wrote
| > What are the specs/details?
| I was looking for some "real world" feedback from existing users as
apposed
| to a thread about specs or details etc.

This is usenet, try to control it, it will bite you in the arse.
Better to take what a thread gives you, and accept it.

It's 2 megapixel, no optical zoom, 1.6" TFT display.

for detailed specs -> http://www.digital-cameras.info/kodak-cx4200.htm

heh, my credit card sized mp3 player/camera (exilim m2) does better than
that...

still, cheap enough for casual use..


"T.N.O" <> wrote in message
news:3f28e093$...
> "Chris Mayhew" wrote
> | "Nicholas Sherlock" wrote
> | > What are the specs/details?
> | I was looking for some "real world" feedback from existing users as
> apposed
> | to a thread about specs or details etc.
>
> This is usenet, try to control it, it will bite you in the arse.
> Better to take what a thread gives you, and accept it.
>
>

actually thats a lie, the specs are exactly the same! LOL

for $270 you can't go too wrong, i see www.digitalcameras.co.nz have it
listed for $349 and DSE have it for $399. The next version up is the CX4230
which is same but has a 3x optical zoom. digitalcameras.co.nz have it for
$499 and DSE for a whopping $879.


"timmy @tjv.info>" <tim<nospam> wrote in message
news:zS6Wa.98333$...
> It's 2 megapixel, no optical zoom, 1.6" TFT display.
>
> for detailed specs -> http://www.digital-cameras.info/kodak-cx4200.htm
>
> heh, my credit card sized mp3 player/camera (exilim m2) does better than
> that...
>
> still, cheap enough for casual use..
>
>
> "T.N.O" <> wrote in message
> news:3f28e093$...
> > "Chris Mayhew" wrote
> > | "Nicholas Sherlock" wrote
> > | > What are the specs/details?
> > | I was looking for some "real world" feedback from existing users as
> > apposed
> > | to a thread about specs or details etc.
> >
> > This is usenet, try to control it, it will bite you in the arse.
> > Better to take what a thread gives you, and accept it.
> >
> >
>
>

"tim" <tim[nospam]@tjv.info> wrote in
newst7Wa.98364$:

> actually thats a lie, the specs are exactly the same! LOL
>
> for $270 you can't go too wrong, i see www.digitalcameras.co.nz have
> it listed for $349 and DSE have it for $399. The next version up is
> the CX4230 which is same but has a 3x optical zoom.
> digitalcameras.co.nz have it for $499 and DSE for a whopping $879.
>
>
Yeah, $270 is cheap so therefore hard to go to wrong and to get optical
zoom seems to cost about twice as much. There was a Samsung model for $299
that I kind of considered which had more or less the same features as the
CX4200 but I can't see any point spending more than $300 on something that
is only a "little" bit better when you consider you can buy a 3 MP with
Optical zoom in the $500 bracket.

On the other hand the CX4200 might be a heap of crap which is why there
going so cheap (rather than making way for a new model to be released).

Of course $270 is only about 15 rolls of film + developing.

I think i'll check out the deal more closely maybe the more expensive
resellers include a MMC in their higher price in which case this might not
be the best deal after all.
--
Chris Mayhew using Xnews !

You have to consider whether you want zoom capability.
If you do, digital zoom is useless, unless you like looking at blurred
pixels.
DonB

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 12:52:08 GMT, Chris Mayhew <> wrote:

>Yeah, $270 is cheap so therefore hard to go to wrong and to get optical
>zoom seems to cost about twice as much.

"tim" <tim[nospam]@tjv.info> wrote in
news:5mgWa.98757$:

> yes i think we are both aware that digital zoom is next to useless
> hence we didn't mention this at all.
>
>
Tim, do you know what landscapes look like at 2 MP (in general) ? The
sample pics on the Kodak website were all kind of close ups though the back
ground didn't look that good.
--
Chris Mayhew using Xnews !

"T.N.O" <> wrote in news:3f28e093$:

> "Chris Mayhew" wrote
>| "Nicholas Sherlock" wrote
>| > What are the specs/details?
>| I was looking for some "real world" feedback from existing users as
> apposed
>| to a thread about specs or details etc.
>
> This is usenet, try to control it, it will bite you in the arse.
> Better to take what a thread gives you, and accept it.
>
>
>

OIC it's the internet police back on the beat. Pot Kettle Black etc etc

I assume that it never occured to you that I might have been atempting to
clear up a point I may or may not have made very clear in my original post
(relating to general user feedback rather than technical detail - though it
seemed pretty clear to me) which may or may not have lead Nichloas to ask
the question he did. I am of course assuming you read my original post
rather than take my reply to Nicholas out of context.

Now please pay attention - I am looking for real world feedback
(experiences) from existing users or owners of this particular model
camera.

This is usenet, try to control it, it will bite you in the arse.
Better to take what a thread gives you, and accept it.

Feel free to take your own advise.

--
Chris Mayhew using Xnews !

ok, landscape shots with a 2mp camera are pretty damn good actually. Most of
the fixed lenses are 35mm which is quite a wide angle so they are great for
that, actually closeup/portrait pictures with 35mm are not that good.

I just got some digital prints from my pictures and i was pretty impressed
with 2mp images (1600x1200) printed on 6x4 prints, actually the quality is
awesome. Let there be no mistake tho, 2mp is the lower limit if you want to
ever print your images and still have decent quality, let alone if u want
them printed larger. hehe

I can email you some shots from my camera (35mm fixed 2mp, same as the kodak
xc4200) if u want. i think u would be pleasently surprised with the quality.

cu


"Chris Mayhew" <> wrote in message
news:3BhWa.8580$...
> "tim" <tim[nospam]@tjv.info> wrote in
> news:5mgWa.98757$:
>
> > yes i think we are both aware that digital zoom is next to useless
> > hence we didn't mention this at all.
> >
> >
> Tim, do you know what landscapes look like at 2 MP (in general) ? The
> sample pics on the Kodak website were all kind of close ups though the
back
> ground didn't look that good.
> --
> Chris Mayhew using Xnews !

"tim" <tim[nospam]@tjv.info> wrote in
news:b3kWa.98954$:

> I can email you some shots from my camera (35mm fixed 2mp, same as the
> kodak xc4200) if u want. i think u would be pleasently surprised with
> the quality.
>
That would be great, I have an Epson 760 so I could try printing and that
would give me an idea of what I'm in for in terms of size limits etc. Mail
to fred<dot>flintstone<at>paradise.net.nz
--
Chris Mayhew using Xnews !

ok, have uploaded the pictures to my website because it was easier.

http://www.tjv.info/camera.htm

hope it helps ya..

cu

tim


"Chris Mayhew" <> wrote in message
newsBkWa.8602$...
> "tim" <tim[nospam]@tjv.info> wrote in
> news:b3kWa.98954$:
>
> > I can email you some shots from my camera (35mm fixed 2mp, same as the
> > kodak xc4200) if u want. i think u would be pleasently surprised with
> > the quality.
> >
> That would be great, I have an Epson 760 so I could try printing and that
> would give me an idea of what I'm in for in terms of size limits etc. Mail
> to fred<dot>flintstone<at>paradise.net.nz
> --
> Chris Mayhew using Xnews !