Kodak C300

Re: Kodak C300

John Clifford

>Hi Todd. It all depends on what you want to do with it. If your happy with printing only 4X6 prints you'll be fine, enlarging too much may strech the limits of the megapixels. Also if you don't plan on croping too much you'll have no problems. I would imagine it doesn't have much in the way of optical zoom, that would limit photos at any amount of distance. By the way forget about digital zoom it'll only make the pictures worse, more grainy. For taking pictures and posting on the internet or especially on WoodCentral it'll work famously. I have a 5.1 megapixel camera and it's more than I need. I WANT the 8.1 megapixel Canon but I sure don't need it ;) Need versus want doesn't apply to only tools. Hope this helped.

Re: Kodak C300

paul womack

>Right off the bat I do't want it because it is only 3.2 maga pixels.

That's far TOO many pixels for web use, and enough for good quality 6x4 prints. Don't be sucked into the mega pixel armes race.

Information:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Kodak/kodak_c300.asp

The lack of a zoom and macro focus is the big issue here, I feel.

(reads more) Oh hell. It's fixed focus - i.e. the focus is set at the factory!

Change it. Sorry.

BugBear

Re: Kodak C300

paul womack

>Other than that it seems to be a decent little camera for $100-employee discount.

Discount?!?!??!!

Even Amazon have it at $94.99

BugBear

Re: Kodak C300

Clay C in Miami

>You've gotten good advice - it is NOT the 3.2 megapixels that's the problem with that camera - it's the fixed focus, no macro, etc. plus it'll only shoot ISO 200, and slowest shutter is 1/2 second, so you might have a hard time with anything other than brightly lit scenes. For tool shots, one very worthwhile investment will be a tripod. I see 'em at yard sales constantly.

Keep in mind that the ones I/we recommended for you last time were, pretty much like this Kodak, also only 3 or 4 megapixels, because you said you intended to use the camera almost entirely for posting pics on line.

IIRC, the Canon A410 or Nikon 4600 each cost only $160 at Beach Camera - and for only an extra $60, that's a no-brainer - return the Kodak. These models are 4 megapixels, but I didn't recommend them over the 3.2 megapixel Canon A320 or Nikon 3200 because of that (though it's nice enough) - it was because the 4-megapixel models were actually cheaper than the 3.2s!

And remember to slather on the thank-yous extra thick, since you're gonna return it ...

Clay

Re: Kodak C300

Arw01

>Your crazy if you think a 3.2 mega pixel camera can only make 4x6 prints. A ROUGH rule of thumb is 240ppi per inch.

In reality a 3.2 set on fine quality will yield a stunnnig 11x14 all other photographic issues aside.

Alan

Make a Pact

Hoa Dinh in Alameda

>"I wasn't expecting her to buy me a camera. I was antcipating going to go look at some...."

Camera is a tool. Like any other tool, it is very personal.

I made a pact with my SWMBO: she doesn't buy me tools and I don't buy her clothing. She violated it just once, buying me a drill (asking her boss for advice). I "returned" by buying her a dress. That was the last time she bought me a tool ;-)>

About camera, if you plan to take photos indoors a lot, get one that can take external flash unit. Besides the benefit of extra distance coverage, the light from an external flash can be bounced off a wall or ceiling for soft-shadow or shadowless photos.

-- Hoa

Re: Kodak C300

John Clifford

>You're not the first to call me crazy :)

Re: Kodak C300

Moses Yoder in White Pigeon, MI

>One thing about my Kodak camera, it has lasted me more than 5 years without one thing going wrong with it. I have taken thousands of pictures with it. Another thing, I would consider your wife's feelings; unless there is something really wrong with the camera, I would tell her you love it. She wants you to think she is capable, and knows you well enough, to choose a decent gift for you.

Re: Kodak C300

Ed in Leaside

>Crunching those numbers, with a requirement of 240 pixels per "linear" inch, gives a file size of almost 9 Megapixels (11 x 240 x 14 x 240). Working backwards from 3.2 Meg on an 11x14 print, there are about 145ppi available (assuming the camera's aspect ratio is correct for this size print ;-)) which would be adequate in my experience.

I wonder where that rough came from. As little as 225 ppi is considered acceptable for magazine work on glossy paper (and more than 300 is overkill, unless it's a higher-end coffee table book).

Ed

AP: Print shop owner(offset), 30 years in the biz

It's looking like it will be the.....

Todd O. Cronkhite Maine Native in FL. Exile :~(

>Nikon 4600. Cons?

Moses,

I hear where you're coming from, but this will not be an issue. She is very pleased that I was pleased that she had bought me a digital camera. I told her right up front that it may not be just the right camera tho. She was fine with that. She told me tolet her know and she'd take it back. I hate to be a "returner", but by goodness in this case I want the best camera I can get for the $$. I've waited long enough for one, and I want a good one. Appreciate the concern tho.

Many good ideas where brought up in this thread that I probably would'nt of considered. the biggest one being power supply. Havingto use special batteries is a pain my rumpus,so a camera that uses common AA batts is a big plus. I was strongly leaning towards a Mavica,but than the issue of future computers not having a disk drive put me off that idea. I'm still not up on the Marco and Zoom questions, but the Nikon 4600 has 16 shooting modes, and 3x zoom, so it seems to me that somewhere in there I should be able to do what I desire.

I hope that others found this thread to be useful as well.

Many Thanks to all.

Todd O.

Useful?

Greg B�tit, Crown Point NY

>Man, Moses said a mouthful!

But if a camera is a camera, and she doesn't give a rip, go for the feature/$ factor.

Me, it seems there are more megapixels and zoom-a, etc. factors than anyone needs in a camera. If LOML wanted me to have more pixels, I'd have to tell her to look in the LV or LN catalog and find something that's more useful. As it is, when I try to post, I have to dumb down the pix by a factor of 10 or more.

Greg

Re: Kodak C300

Jerry Nicholson

>I have made a lot of very good 8 x 10 prints with a 3.3 megapixel camera, often working in 2.2 megapixel mode. This was an excellent $1000 Olympus in early 2000 but it looks quite primative today. My current point and shoot is a 7.1 megapixel Cannon but considering optical quality and diffraction limiting there is little to be gained by going beyond 4 megapixels with the tiny P & S sensor. With the much larger sensor in the digital SLRs, and in the new Sony, much higher resolutions are reasonable. Don't select a camera because it has lots of megapixels but, on the other hand, don't reject a high megapixel camera if it has the features you want.

Jerry

Re: It's looking like it will be the.....

paul womack

>Nikon 4600. Cons?

information

Very few. Personally I prefer more manual controls for handling extreme conditions (hence my choice Canon a510), but the 4600 has sufficient modes that you'll get excellent photos on a MASSIVE proportion of situations.

BugBear

Re: Kodak C300

paul womack

>This was an excellent $1000 Olympus in early 2000.

Good optics, I suspect, and those always help ;-)

BugBear

Re: It's looking like it will be the.....

Tony - Memphis

>Hi Todd. Don't feel bad, my wife bought me a Craftsman router before we got married. At the time, I was thrilled and touched.

Anyway, I have a Canon Elph S330 (2 mp) and it takes extremely good pictures. I have printed shots much larger than 4x6 that look great (even with a common HP inkjet). So, don't let the megapixel thing be too big a factor. Now, I also have the Nikon D70. Whole different ballpark. Wonderful camera. Much more than someone at my lack of photography skills needs. I really like the capabilities it offers. A co-worker of mine has a Nikon like what you are considering I think. He loves it. Anyway, enjoy your new toy, whatever you end up with! One thing to consider...I suggest a card reader plugged into your pc for transferring photos - much easier and faster. Oh, the battery thing. I really like that the Canon and the Nikon have their own Lithium cells. They last for a long time and are much smaller than AA's. Our old Nikon here at work goes through batteries like you wouldn't believe! One last consideration is the media type. The prices of the SD/MMC cards are really coming down and they help make the camera smaller too. You can check dpreview or steves digicam for reference.

Tony

Re: It's looking like it will be the.....

paul womack

>I really like that the Canon and the Nikon have their own Lithium cells. They last for a long time and are much smaller than AA's.

uh?

The Nikon 4600 uses 'AA', and so does the Canon A510/A520 and so does the new Canon A610/A620.

BugBear

Re: Kodak C300

Jerry Nicholson

>The Olympus C3030 had excellent optics and the glass on my Canon G6 is even better. For serious pictures though I use a Nikon D70.

Jerry

batteries

Clay C in Miami

>I'd have to check to be sure, but I think both those models do come with (or have available) a rechargeable lithium-proprietary battery. The good thing is that they will ALSO take AAs, which are available everywhere, so you can't get stuck with no power if your lithium runs down ...

I think even my D70 will take AAs (mounted in a little 'carrier') in a pinch ...

Clay