Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Kodak

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 16, 2004, 9:25 PM   #1
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 74

Just looking for a brief opinion on the Kodak EasyShare DX7630, my brother in law and his wife are novice at best, and just looking for a good point & shoot for vacations, bike and car shows, and some indoor shots. Ease of operation, low shudder lag are concerns, and he has large hands, so compact isn't an advantage.They have an HP photo printer, and are looking in the 4 - 5 hndred range, it's on sale at Circut Xity for $399
Thanks in advance,
Upalms is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Aug 16, 2004, 10:17 PM   #2
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 423

I bought it. It's a great little camera. I don't have large hands and I still find it a tad small. The shutter speeds are great, not a whole lot of lag to speak of.

It's REALLY versitile. Lots of configuration options. If they're novice at best, then maybe the extra features might be a bit much for them, or it might prompt them to learn a little more about digital photography.

Anyways, it's a good camera and worth the money.


LINEBACKER 2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2004, 6:01 PM   #3
Junior Member
hellboy's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 6

This review is based on my purchase of a Kodak dx7630 just a few days ago, and the extensive test and real life pictures I've taken with it. I hope this review, while not professional by any means, not only helps you decide or not decide on a Kodak, but the knowledge gained will help you get a camera you're absolutely satisfied with. While this review seems to focus on picture quality, for me, it has to do more with what we as consumers are sold. So, not only is this a review of the camera, but is a review of the specs we're told by manufacturers and their incredible knack of selling nearly anything to us consumers.

In all fairness, the Kodak is an excellent camera, for 3.1mp that is. What? You ask? The dx7630 is a 6.1mp, not a 3.1. Well, based on my findings and my personal opinion, no it's not. (Please Kodak give me some insight if anything you read here simply is not true). I'd love to get a real rundown of the camera.

So, in my opinion, based on my own tests, my own camera, and taking into evaluation some of the things I've read online about this camera, the Kodak dx7630 is an optical 3.1 ccd camera with some sort of heeby jeeby software majiggy thingy that allows it to go above those resolutions to be claimed as anything higher than a 3.1, in this case, a 6.1mp. (It's the only explanation I could gather that makes sense) This is called software enhancement, or in other terms, interpolation, or in other words, strategically and digitally placing additional noise (or pixels if you will) to increase the total resolution of the actual optical (or hardware) capabilities of a device. This, by the way, is common practice with printing and or scanning devices. Add noise by adding pixels, and what you have is more resolution. Duh. But, it's only perceived at best.

Now that you've got a rundown, here's the good and the ugly…

THE GOOD. The Kodak dx7630 is an absolutely superior digital camera when used in it's optically available resolution… in this case, again from my opinion is 3.1. If you're happy with simply having a 3.1 point-and-shoot easy to use camera who's features, size, quality of photos, etc. are the absolutely best available out there, than this camera, or other Kodak's are for you. Hands down. The crispness of the photo, the clarity, and the incredible color duplication are the best I have seen on a digital camera, again at 3.1mp set at Fine resolution.

THE UGLY. Any resolution set above 3.1 on the Kodak and the quality of the photo is nowhere near the quality of a comparable Canon. If the final quality of the photo is what you seek, AND will only be taking shots above 3.1mp, go for a Canon. The 4.0mp Canon line, and 5mp, in terms of image quality, are by far better than the Kodak can ever be at 4, 5.4, or 6.1 resolutions.

ALTERNATIVES to RESOLUTION. Here's the part of this review that gets tricky. So let's say you have the Kodak and want higher resolution than it's optical capabilities (at 3.1mp). Instead of increasing the resolution in the camera itself, you might as well capture it at 3.1mp to get a picture that, again, is superior than anything else I've seen at that resolution, then transfer it to your computer, open it in Adobe Photoshop, and increase (in other words – resample) the original beautiful 3.1 image to more resolution, say 4 or even 6mp. Believe it or not, for most landscape photos and those types of things, the quality you'll get after resampling is better from photoshop than the resampling the camera must do internally to achieve the same resolution. Try it. You'll like it. The problem with that though, is you could simply purchase a 5mp Canon for the same price as the 3.1mp Kodak (yeah yeah, 6.1mp, but I'd be lying to myself if I say that), get incredible quality, and apply the same technique (along with possibly some sharpening filters) and go for an 8mp final image… it would be huge and be better quality than that of the Kodak at it's wannabe resolution of 6.1mp.

You see, it's all about that interpolation thing… that resampling thing. It's the same thing as using digital zoom versus optical zoom… digital simply "enhances" the image using those very same strategically placed pixels. Here's a crappy test… take a Kodak dx7630, set the resolution at 6.1, then use the digital zoom, and what you have is pixels added to already added pixels to generate what is effectively a truly ugly, unrealistic, wannabe detailed photo.

I'd like everyone who owns a dx7630 to give this stuff a shot, and you'll see what I mean. Again, at 3.1, nothing beats the Kodak dx7630… but increase it above that, and you might as well get yourself a Canon. Even a 4.0mp photo from a Canon, photoshop enhanced to 6.1mp, is a considerably more clear and less noisy image than a Kodak set at 6.1mp.

So the bottom line, I've set my Kodak dx7630 at 3.1mp and will never move it from that position. I just have to be okay with buying a 3.1mp Kodak for $399.00 and talk myself into the beautiful pictures that Kodak creates at it's optical "real" resolution. Plus I like all the functionality of the Koday dx7630, again though, only operating at 3.1mp.

I guess you could say it's an expensive 3.1mp digital camera, but, boy are those 3.1 images excellent, clear, sharp, stunning, colorful, and just downright beautiful.
hellboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2004, 6:32 PM   #4
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 423

Did you confront Kodak about what you think is going on with the DX7630? You should and see what they say.

I like the camera, it does what I want it to, but I'll try your suggestions.

Seriously though, write to Kodak and see what those guys say.


LINEBACKER 2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2004, 8:31 PM   #5
Senior Member
brianhare's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 969

I can tell you what Kodak would tell you,,,,LOL...

brianhare is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:55 AM.