Kodak Introduces 4 Megapixel Camera For $399

macsrgood4u · February 25, 2002 11:48AM

Eastman Kodak Co., Rochester, NY, (800-235-6325), released the EasyShare DX4900 Zoom Digital Camera. Kodak says this is the first print-optimized 4.0 megapixel digital camera designed to be one-touch simple.

Â* The EasyShare DX4900 is designed to let users make prints from 4-by-6 inches up to 20-by-30 inches. It has all-glass aspherical lenses and enhanced 6X zoom (2X optical and 3X digital). The camera lets users choose between an automatic mode and several creative modes.

Â* The Kodak EasyShare system includes the Kodak Picture Software that allows customers to print high quality pictures at home on their inkjet printers. The software also offers users an easy path to obtain prints via the Internet.

Â* Kodak says the camera uses a new set of patented imaging algorithms to deliver image quality that rivals traditional photography. This technology includes advanced white balance and exposure processing, with no orange or green casts from improper lighting, and virtually no poorly exposed pictures, plus vibrant, rich, consistent colors with true flesh tone reproduction, sharpness and contrast.

Â* The camera includes three sharpness modes - normal, sharp and soft; color, sepia and black-and-white color modes; manual focus; burst mode for high speed sequence shooting; 10 manual exposure time settings including long shutter speeds; and three metering modes.

Â* The EasyShare DX4900 has a MSRP of $399 and is compatible with the Kodak EasyShare camera dock, for image transfer to computer, and quick recharging of the camera's batteries.

Here's more info and news from *PMA:

<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/2002/02/25/digital-cameras.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/2002/02/25/digital-cameras.htm</a>;

*Photo Marketing Association

[ 02-25-2002: Message edited by: MacsRGood4U ]

[ 02-25-2002: Message edited by: MacsRGood4U ]

aries 1b · February 26, 2002 8:39PM

Whoa!

If it's got a dock/cradle to connect to a computer, I'm 50% of the way to purchaseville!

If a digital spoke ain't got no cradle, it ain't no damn good.

Aries 1B

eugene · February 26, 2002 11:34PM

Too bad Kodak digital cameras are basically the worst of the lot... when compared with its competition in Olympus, Canon, Nikon, Sony...

The price may make up for its shortcomings in image quality though.

macsrgood4u · February 27, 2002 7:10AM

Cradle costs extra ($79.00). If you go to Circuit City and look at the Kodak camera reviews by consumers you'll find that they average about the same as the Canon, Olympus, Nikon etc. Since digital photography, whether 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 megapixels is still WAY below film, most cameras still leave a lot to be desired.

eugene · February 27, 2002 4:56PM

So you'd trust a Circuit City user review over a slew of professional reviews? Hmm. In some cases I might, but not this case.

applenut · February 27, 2002 4:59PM

[quote]Originally posted by Eugene:

So you'd trust a Circuit City user review over a slew of professional reviews? Hmm. In some cases I might, but not this case.<hr></blockquote>

so you would instead not buy it just based on past product reviews and instead dismiss it?

and it's not a professional camera.

give it a chance. wait for the reviews.

hmurchison · February 27, 2002 6:07PM

[quote]Originally posted by MacsRGood4U:

<snip> Since digital photography, whether 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 megapixels is still WAY below film, most cameras still leave a lot to be desired.<hr></blockquote>

Not really. A 6MP Pro Camera from Nikon or Canon will product a pic that some say is everybit as good as a 35mm print. Film does have it's known quantities though. I expect the debate to last for years similar to the LP vs Tape vs CD debates that continue to this day.

eugene · February 27, 2002 9:36PM

applenut, it's just the same 3.3 megapixel DX3900 they had before, with a 4.1 megapixel sensor. It's not something breathtaking. it's probably a good camera for someone looking for point and shoot snapshots. I definitely wouldn't use it for anything more tha point-and-shoot photography...Definitely not good for capturing the atmosphere of a concert, sports event, nature walk, whatever. So yeah, maybe I'm a bit harsh on Kodak cameras, but I think people should look for cameras that they won't grow out of so quickly.

Dude, Rochester isn't that close to NYC.

If you want to see too amazing 4 megapixel class digital cameras, I would point you toward the Olympus C-4040 and the Sony DSC-S85. And if image quality isn't too big a deal, Olympus has a tiny 4 megapixel model called the D-40 that is priced at $599 from B&H and probably much less at other places.

If you want a 4 megapixel camera in a small form-factor, you've got the Canon S40.

And yes, I would defintiely trust the following three website's negative reviews over most positive 'customer reviews.'

<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/"; target="_blank">http://www.dpreview.com/</a>;

<a href="http://www.imaging-resource.com/"; target="_blank">http://www.imaging-resource.com/</a>;

<a href="http://www.steves-digicams.com/"; target="_blank">http://www.steves-digicams.com/</a>;

eugene · February 27, 2002 9:43PM

[quote]Originally posted by hmurchison:



Not really. A 6MP Pro Camera from Nikon or Canon will product a pic that some say is everybit as good as a 35mm print. Film does have it's known quantities though. I expect the debate to last for years similar to the LP vs Tape vs CD debates that continue to this day.<hr></blockquote>

Sorta...for consumers, 6 megapixel is probably already overkill. 3+ megapixel cams are plenty for your average 4x6 or 5x7 print. 3+ megapixel cams are just good anough for decent looking 8x10s. 4-5 megapixel cameras are defintiely good enough for 8x10s.

The quality of stills taken from digital cameras depend on the CCD resolution and the physical size of the CCD. Some of the prosumer cameras have CCDs that are roughly as large as APS film. A lot of people still say 35 mm film translates into ~30 megapixels...

eskimo · February 28, 2002 10:55AM

[quote]Originally posted by Eugene:

Dude, Rochester isn't that close to NYC.

<hr></blockquote>

True dat

[quote]

And yes, I would defintiely trust the following three website's negative reviews over most positive 'customer reviews.'

<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/"; target="_blank">http://www.dpreview.com/</a>;

<a href="http://www.imaging-resource.com/"; target="_blank">http://www.imaging-resource.com/</a>;

<a href="http://www.steves-digicams.com/"; target="_blank">http://www.steves-digicams.com/</a>[/QB]<hr></blockquote>;

Eugene is right. Steve's digicams and Dpreview are by far the best review sites for digital cameras on the net.

robertp · February 28, 2002 2:30PM

[quote]Originally posted by MacsRGood4U:. Since digital photography, whether 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 megapixels is still WAY below film, most cameras still leave a lot to be desired.[/QB]<hr></blockquote>

I beg to differ on this point since I have used both 35mm and medium format equipment. I currently have an Olympus c4040 and would put the final printed picture up against anything I ever did with my Nikon F4. CCD, pixel rates etc. do not mean a thing to me..the final print tells the truth regardless of camera spec, given you have a good quality photo printer. Digital is close to or better than film in some cases, excluding medium format, and this is also changing at a rapid pace.

eugene · February 28, 2002 7:11PM

Try printing a 6 megapixel image at 16x20 or 20x30. Film can do that, digital cannot, unless you pay mega bucks for a huge digital medium format pro back.

That 3.5 mpixel X3 equipped Sigma SD9 would be great for taking photos of anything up to 8x10 though...and even a little bigger. No moire, no artifacts! Yum!

Too bad it's a Sigma...heh.

Kodak Introduces 4 Megapixel Camera For $399

Comments