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

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Ron Hunter, May 8, 2006.

  1. Ron Hunter

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 04:55:59 -0600
    Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
    Message-ID: <>
    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: <> <>
    In-Reply-To: <>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    X-Complaints-To:
    Lines: 46
    Xref: intern1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com rec.photo.digital:991978

    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
    >


    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.
     
    Ron Hunter, May 8, 2006
    #1
    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. Info
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    819
    ArtKramr
    Nov 18, 2003
  2. Jerome Bigge

    New Kodak CX6200

    Jerome Bigge, Dec 9, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    448
    Ron Hunter
    Dec 11, 2003
  3. eng

    Kodak DX4530 or Kodak DX6340??????

    eng, Feb 3, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    1,173
  4. Roger Stone

    Kodak CX6200 vs. Old NiMH batteries

    Roger Stone, Jun 24, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    477
    Ron Baird
    Jun 28, 2004
  5. jstrutton99

    Kodak CX6200 Battery Question

    jstrutton99, Nov 15, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    405
    jstrutton99
    Nov 15, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page