Should I buy the Kodak DX4530...

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Marcus Fox, Dec 24, 2003.

  1. Marcus Fox

    Marcus Fox Guest

    Or stick with the Canon Powershot A70 that I was going to get. I saw the
    Kodak for £198.90 and it's 5MP, whereas the A70 is £270 and 3.2MP. I am very
    confused as I have never owned a digital camera before, hope someone can
    shed some light on this or offer some opinions.

    Many thanks.

    Marcus
     
    Marcus Fox, Dec 24, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Marcus Fox

    james roboto Guest

    kodaks are cheap. Never kept one more than a couple of weeks. Nice toys
    though.
     
    james roboto, Dec 24, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Marcus Fox

    ? Guest

    An off the wall observation with no proof. Much the same as that given by
    our friend George_Preddy. Admittedly some Kodaks leave much to be desired,
    but I had a DC-215 years back that served me well and was certainly not
    cheaply made and was not a toy. If you are looking at them via Jessops have
    them let you take a shot inside using each and print them. I am sure they
    have a Fuij Frontier in house.

    Regards,
    Ed
     
    ?, Dec 24, 2003
    #3
  4. Marcus Fox

    Larry Lynch Guest

    winn.server.ntli.net>, please-reply-via[email protected]
    posted-to.com says...
    The 4530 is an excellent little pocket camera, if you
    are satisfied with Auto-everything.

    It has the best auto-white balance I hve EVER seen, and
    I've got a few top end digital Point & Shoot cameras.

    The only options on the Kodak 4530 are Scene modes
    (action/twilight/macro/landscape/video ect)

    Flash modes (auto/auto w/red eye reduction/slow
    sync/flash off, and the slow shutter speed (which must
    be re-set any time you need it).

    It shoots a fairly clean (low noise) 5mp image, with
    good color.

    3x zoom is good, anything more would need a REALLY
    steady hand or a tripod anyway.

    It can use AA rechargeables OR a special Kodak battery,
    and SD or MMC memory, it also has (I think) 32mb
    internal memory which can be read at the same time as
    the SD memory.

    I purchased the 4530 to replace my wifes camera, but so
    far I've had enough fun with it to consider getting a
    second one for her, and keeping the first one to have a
    camera that fits in a shirt pocket but still takes a
    good (read that as "useable") picture.

    Canon and Olympus BOTH make cameras that fit in a pocket
    and are ready on a moments notice just like the Kodak,
    and they take GREAT pictures, but they are NOT (AFAIK)
    as inexpensive as the Kodak.

    I haven't used the Canon you mentioned so someone else
    can fill you in on what it can do.


    Any answers to any camera questions that label a
    particular brand as "ALL JUNK" or "ALL TOYS", should be
    discounted right down to the value of the gas that
    passes after you have a baked bean dinner.
     
    Larry Lynch, Dec 24, 2003
    #4
  5. Marcus Fox

    Peri Guest

    Larry, I have to second your opinion. I needed a fairly light, fairly small
    POINT & SHOOT camera, and was able to pick this one up for less than $270, or
    about the same as some of the better 3 mp models I was looking at.

    If you're okay with a generally automatic camera (about which I find many
    frequent contributors to this group to be generally disdainful, which is their
    right but certainly not helpful to those of us who are less than power-users),
    I, for one, don't think you can find a better deal.

    It takes very nice, high quality shots, with great color. The "extra"
    megapixels allow for cropping without significant loss of quality, and the menus
    and controls are easy to use. I also like that it uses only two batteries (as
    opposed to the four the Canon takes), and it's a bit lighter fully loaded. I
    also like that it uses SD or MMC cards instead of XD, which was what I needed
    for the Olympus I also liked.

    Think about what's important to YOU, and try to find a camera that matches. I
    found that the things most highly touted about the A70 were features I would
    never find myself using. For me, ease of use (without sacrificing much in the
    way of picture quality) and more mps were more important. The DX4530 easily fit
    the bill.

    ~ Peri
     
    Peri, Dec 24, 2003
    #5
  6. Marcus Fox

    Dazed Guest

    I just bought the A80 4Mpix from Amazon for £269.29 (£223 for the A70
    IIRC), took 2 days to deliver from Saturday. It's got lots of manual
    settings and also full auto, I've never used a digital camera before and
    set it to macro, focused a bit and this is the best picture I managed in
    1hr. I didn't set the contrast thing correctly though.

    http://www.dazed.dsl.pipex.com/JD.jpg
     
    Dazed, Dec 24, 2003
    #6
  7. Marcus Fox

    Larry Lynch Guest

    @news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>,
    says...

    Snipage of stuff I agree with!!!

    I must admit to being totally blown away by the quality
    of the images it gets.

    I normally use a Sony Cyberview 717, and a Sony Mavicam
    cd500 (BOTH of which are top end 5 mp P&S cameras) and a
    Fuji S5000, So Im kind of USED to getting pretty
    images. the Kodak was bought for my wife to use, and she
    NEVER follows the rules, always shooting whit no light
    or to far away for the flash to work using a Pentax
    automatic 35mm "pocket" camera.

    For every 24 exposure roll she usually got 2 or 3 USABLE
    pictures. I figured it was cheaper to give her a
    digital, and save the film/processing money.

    So thats the story, I bought it because it was
    INEXPENSIVE, and for no other reason, THEN I got
    pleasantly surprised by it.

    It seems well built, its already been knocked off the
    counter (by a cat named Dr. Destructo for obvious
    reasons)onto the Tile floor (38" drop) and suffered no
    damage, and works fine.
     
    Larry Lynch, Dec 24, 2003
    #7
  8. Marcus Fox

    Ron Hunter Guest

    The Kodak 4530 looks to be a great buy. My only complaint about it is
    that it has no integrated lens protection. 5 mp is a definite
    advantage over 3.2 mp.
    I would expect you to be happy with either choice.
     
    Ron Hunter, Dec 25, 2003
    #8
  9. Marcus Fox

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Perhaps if you had left the JD bottle full the picture would be better.
    Grin.

    Still, the price you paid for the A80 is 50% higher than that for the
    Kodak 4530. If you want to pay that much more to be able to make manual
    adjustments, it's you money. (OR it WAS your money....)
     
    Ron Hunter, Dec 25, 2003
    #9
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.