Re: Kodak CX4200 Digital Camera

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by T.N.O, Jul 31, 2003.

  1. T.N.O

    T.N.O Guest

    "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.
     
    T.N.O, Jul 31, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. T.N.O

    timmy Guest

    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.
    >
    >
     
    timmy, Jul 31, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. T.N.O

    tim Guest

    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, Jul 31, 2003
    #3
  4. T.N.O

    Chris Mayhew Guest

    "tim" <tim[nospam]@tjv.info> wrote in
    news:pt7Wa.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 !
     
    Chris Mayhew, Jul 31, 2003
    #4
  5. T.N.O

    DonB Guest

    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.
     
    DonB, Jul 31, 2003
    #5
  6. T.N.O

    Chris Mayhew Guest

    "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 !
     
    Chris Mayhew, Aug 1, 2003
    #6
  7. T.N.O

    Chris Mayhew Guest

    "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 !
     
    Chris Mayhew, Aug 1, 2003
    #7
  8. T.N.O

    tim Guest

    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, Aug 1, 2003
    #8
  9. T.N.O

    Chris Mayhew Guest

    "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 !
     
    Chris Mayhew, Aug 1, 2003
    #9
  10. T.N.O

    tim Guest

    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
    news:pBkWa.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 !
     
    tim, Aug 1, 2003
    #10
  11. T.N.O

    Chris Mayhew Guest

    "tim" <tim[nospam]@tjv.info> wrote in
    news:JLlWa.99038$:

    > ok, have uploaded the pictures to my website because it was easier.
    >
    > http://www.tjv.info/camera.htm
    >
    > hope it helps ya..
    >
    > cu
    >
    > tim
    >
    >

    Thanks very much for your help Tim, I have downloaded them and have printed
    a couple out at about 6x4 on photo paper. They look pretty good so far.
    Have down loaded the spec for your camera to compare to those I have been
    looking at also.

    Enjoyed reading through your website too - makes us kiwi's look a bit lazy.

    Regards


    --
    Chris Mayhew using Xnews !
     
    Chris Mayhew, Aug 1, 2003
    #11
  12. T.N.O

    tim Guest

    one more thing that came to mind is the print setup that they use at the
    camera shop, i didn't see what the printer was, obviously a dye subliminal
    of some sort but I must say it does wonders with the images, even that
    900x600 picture printed perfect. dunno whether the quality is in part from
    image interpolation during printing or just the fact that it was printed on
    a dye-sub, don't know much about printers, hehe guessing. anyway, keep that
    in mind. i'm sure u can figure out what resolution you need to match your
    printer.

    > Enjoyed reading through your website too - makes us kiwi's look a bit

    lazy.

    cheers man!


    "Chris Mayhew" <> wrote in message
    news:%1nWa.8615$...
    > "tim" <tim[nospam]@tjv.info> wrote in
    > news:JLlWa.99038$:
    >
    > > ok, have uploaded the pictures to my website because it was easier.
    > >
    > > http://www.tjv.info/camera.htm
    > >
    > > hope it helps ya..
    > >
    > > cu
    > >
    > > tim
    > >
    > >

    > Thanks very much for your help Tim, I have downloaded them and have

    printed
    > a couple out at about 6x4 on photo paper. They look pretty good so far.
    > Have down loaded the spec for your camera to compare to those I have been
    > looking at also.
    >
    > Enjoyed reading through your website too - makes us kiwi's look a bit

    lazy.
    >
    > Regards
    >
    >
    > --
    > Chris Mayhew using Xnews !
     
    tim, Aug 1, 2003
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Bev

    Anyone know anything about Kodak CX4200

    Bev, Aug 1, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    353
    Ron Baird
    Aug 7, 2003
  2. personal_hygiene

    close up capability of cx4200? will magnifying glass work?

    personal_hygiene, Oct 13, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    446
    robertmaasjr
    Oct 17, 2003
  3. Ron Baird
    Replies:
    28
    Views:
    767
    JSN61
    Jan 10, 2005
  4. enri
    Replies:
    72
    Views:
    1,384
  5. Kevin

    Digital Camera CX4200

    Kevin, Jun 2, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    324
    Roy G
    Jun 2, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page