Linked by Jean-Baptiste Queru on Wed 21st Sep 2005 16:29 UTC
Hardware, Embedded Systems As a photographer, with some high-end equipment, I used to look down on point-and-shoot digicams, putting them in the same category as camera phone, i.e. not capable of taking any picture worth keeping. I was wrong. My experience with a Kodak CX7220 (sells for about $70), graciously provided by Geeks.com, turned out to be unexpectedly positive.
Thread beginning with comment 34646
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
not geeks.com
by on Wed 21st Sep 2005 16:42 UTC

Member since:

A friend of mine got a cheap Kodak from Geeks.com - it was not quite as good as the website made out. For a start it was an obvious refurb, although it didn't say that on the site.

Also it had no optical zoom and no way to add more memory - it was 8Mb built-in only, not much good for 3MP.

Most of the stuff I've bought from there has been a bit low-end, like a 100Mbit mini Firewire card, erm didn't say 100Mbit and didn't say it was 4-pin only (the mini type like on camcorders).

They're not quite as bad as TigerDirect, but...

RE: not geeks.com
by Eugenia on Wed 21st Sep 2005 16:45 in reply to "not geeks.com"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

I have actually *bought* stuff from geeks.com (in the past year) and I was always 100% happy. As for the kodak camera "not being as good as the website made it out", well, I suggest you read the article more carefully which stress the question: "is it the camera or the photographer that takes the sucky pictures?" JBQ is an excellent photographer (and at times he is the OSNews photographer, at news events) and he took fantastic pictures out of this cheap camera. Maybe we should all *learn* to take pictures first before we shoot down a camera manufacturer. Yes, this includes myself too, as I take terrible pictures. ;)

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 5

RE[2]: not geeks.com
by on Wed 21st Sep 2005 17:33 in reply to "RE: not geeks.com"
Member since:

well, I suggest you read the article more carefully which stress the question: "is it the camera or the photographer that takes the sucky pictures?"

Agreed. I'm a terrible photographer, but I've heard stories or pros getting stuck in a pinch and using those one-time-use disposable cameras, even seen the results on occasion, and the pictures came out pretty good.

In my [small and humble] experience, a good photographer can take decent pictures with crappy equipment, and a crappy photographer will take crappy pictures with great equipment.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 0

RE[2]: not geeks.com
by PriceComparison on Wed 28th Sep 2005 16:40 in reply to "not geeks.com"
PriceComparison Member since:
2005-09-28

Cheap cameras are just plain annoying. I believe the pictures are worth more than the camera. I mean it is not worth losing or getting annoyed with a cheap camera. Just my 2 cents.

Andrew
http://www.PriceComparison.com

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 1