Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (
-   General Discussion (
-   -   Im new to this and will be getting a camera in a few hours.? (

charleslong Jan 29, 2004 2:17 PM

Im new to this and will be getting a camera in a few hours.?
Hello everyone, I have been lurking this message board, for a few days, reading about different cameras and stuff. I have decided, that it probably would be best to get a 3mp camera the first go around, and go up from there. All I plan on doing with this camera, is taking some nice pics when im on the road, and when I take pictures around the house. (Meaning my family)
I have been looking at the kodak CX6330 and the cannon A300. I checked, and the have the cheapest prices on these cams. (as far as being able to just go get it out of a store)
I noticed that the resolution on the A300 is slightly higher and so are the MP's. With this being said, would this camera be any better than the kodak? If anyone have experience with these two cameras, could you give your opinion? Also, I have limited myself to spending 200 before taxes.
If you have anymore suggestions, please inform me.

Dani24 Jan 29, 2004 2:24 PM

I purchased (or, my company purchased, after my selection) the Kodak DX4330 for work. I had read some reviews on it, and it seemd to come out fairly well. Plus, it seemed like a very intuitive camera, which I knew my boss would need.

For our purposes, it's worked out fine (we buy/sell commercial real estate, so we are often taking pictures of properties). Plus, my boss likes to "borrow" it when he goes out of town for the weekend, to take pictures of him and his girlfriend and their trips. I wouldn't say any of the pictures have blown me away. But, my boss knows very little about photography, and always shoots in Auto mode, and his pictures turn out well. It does have some manual control to it, but it's not like an SLR.

I'm not sure how similar the CX6330 would be. However, keep in mind that you may need to get a camera dock (which is like another $75) for easier transfering and charging with the Kodak camera.

charleslong Jan 29, 2004 2:38 PM

ok, thanks dani
I also have a hp1215, its got a cf and smart media port on it. I think I will be able to load the pics up through it, b/c its like I have a second drive with those. Anyone use this feature on there printer? Also dani, would I not be able to load the pics up through usb?

slipe Jan 29, 2004 2:42 PM

Of the two you have selected I prefer the Kodak because it has an optical zoom. Digital zoom is useless and an optical zoom lets you frame the image much better. Portraits are also a lot more pleasing. Portrait lenses are usually in the 70-80mm range and the Kodak covers that. 33mm shots like the A300 give are very unflattering for portraits Ė especially if you want a head and shoulders shot. You get long noses etc..

They are both 3Mp cameras. I havenít found any sample pictures from the Kodak to compare, but once you learn to use the zoom I would think many of your shots would be better from the Kodak. If you have to crop you lose pixels and the zoom keeps you from having to do that as much. Kodak cameras take decent pictures.

The cradle isnít really necessary but some people like them. I donít have a cradle for any of my cameras and have no desire to have one cluttering my computer desktop Ė I already have a cradle for my Palm device.

JimC Jan 29, 2004 2:44 PM

Well, I like the photos from the Canon. However, this model has no optical zoom. Do not go by Digital Zoom (this is only cropping a photo and degrades image quality).

Megapixels will not make up for Optical Zoom (it takes 4 times the resolution to double the image size, so you can't crop or use digital zoom to take the place of optical zoom).

As far as your printer, I've got one of these. I never even use the built in reader (it's MUCH slower than stand alone readers from my experience with this printer). I get far faster transfers via dedicated card readers (it must have something to do with the HP drivers for this model's build in readers to be so slow).

BTW, most cameras have USB capability (to download photos directly from the camera). Also, separate card readers are VERY inexpensive.

slipe Jan 29, 2004 2:44 PM

Didnít see your questions before I posted.

You will be able to load through USB and Iím sure it has a battery charger attachment for the camera.

Once you see how much it costs to print photo quality I doubt you will just plug the card into the printer. You would at least want to sort them in the computer and probably want to do a little cropping and image enhancement. The built in reader is a good accessory to get the images into the computer though.

Dani24 Jan 29, 2004 3:40 PM

With the DX4330 you can use USB to transfer pictures. However, I'm pretty certain the camera did not come with any cable for charging the batteries. But, it uses AA batteries, and you can always buy a charger to plug in the wall, and some rechargeable AA's instead.

slipe Jan 29, 2004 5:10 PM


However, I'm pretty certain the camera did not come with any cable for charging the batteries.
I had thought that since you charge the batteries in the camera with the cradle there would be a cable to use the charging circuits in the camera. You are familiar with the camera so I guess that isnít the case.

You need the NiMH batteries anyway and there are inexpensive package deals with the charger.

gibsonpd3620 Jan 29, 2004 5:23 PM

I would opt for the Kodak because of the optical zoom and I believe the camera is user friendly.

charleslong Jan 29, 2004 5:24 PM

thanks guys, I think I will end up going with the 6330. Are there anymore suggestions within that 200.00. Also, would it be worth it to go with a 2mp over the 3mp? I will print 8*10's every now and then. Will there be a big difference in image quality between a 2 and 3mp camera?

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:52 AM.