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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 6, 2004, 5:38 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5
Default Nikon 5700 or Kodak DX6490

Having used Kodak's DC4800 (3X, 3mp) for 2 years, I need to upgrade to a good zoom and really quality images. Besides, my 4800 has a numbering problem that Kodak can't figure out (but if I load a clean memory card, shoot a shot and delete it, I can then clean off the other filled memory card and not have the camera lose the numbering sequence). Also, my 4800 occasionally will lock up and has to be reset by removing the battery and then resetting the date/time. Since I rarely do macro, never print bigger than 8X10, would use Photoshop 7 rather than EasyShare, and would supplement either the Nikon 5700 or the Kodak DX6490 with an external flash, would I be much less happy with the Kodak DX6490 (10X optical), esp. in view of its small jpeg files? Or is the Nikon 5700 (8X optical) so superior in image quality, resolution, white balance, autofocus, etc that its well worth the extra $335, even though its about to be discontinued on Valentine's Day :?:
bagmanandblondie is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Feb 6, 2004, 7:08 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,585
Default

I own the 5700 and my sis owns the 6490. The 6490 only allows very little manual control over the camera. It is a point and shoot camera. The 5700 is a camera that allows manual control over the camera. However, the camera does require a learning curve to learn all it's functions. I would not trade my 5700 for the 6490.
gibsonpd3620 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7, 2004, 7:51 AM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 8
Default

They are really two totaly different style cameras for two very different markets. You could always use the 5700 as a point and shoot camera by leaving it in the automatic mode , but you really cant use the kodak as a true manual camera. The build quality is not close. The nikon wins hands down. If you use the camera a lot then you will be able to see the difference between the two. If you only shoot once in a while then you by the kodak. If you use the camera a lot then you buy the nikon or other prosumer camera.
ronald4500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 2004, 2:33 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Setiprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 484
Default

Have to agree with Gibson and Ronald.

I use different wording but the response is essentially the same.

For what it's worth.
Setiprime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2004, 12:15 AM   #5
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 33
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ronald4500
If you only shoot once in a while then you by the kodak. If you use the camera a lot then you buy the nikon or other prosumer camera.
I own the 5700 and my brother owns the 6490. I have used both.

I would agree with the previous posters. They are really different cameras. The 6490 is really a big zoom point and shoot camera (albeit a very decent point and shoot camera). The 5700 fits more in the prosumer category and as you noticed, you will pay accordingly.


According to you needs, I would probably suggest getting the 5700. However, I wouldn't necessary agree that the Kodak is only good for occasional use as the previous poster suggested.
x10guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 17, 2004, 7:52 AM   #6
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5
Default

Both the Kodak and Nikon are Great cameras, but as mentioned before, marketed to entirely different buyers. The Kodak is great for ease of use, will give bright color reproduction. The Nikon will give more manual control than the average Kodak consumer would dream of using. The Nikon will give sharper detail as well.

If ease of use is what you want, go with the Kodak or wait a bit for the new Minolta X2. Since you already have a 3.1 mp camera, you might consider at least 5 mp as an upgrade or bite the bullet and get the Nikon 8700 which adds scene selction modes for great P&S auto shooting and all the manual control you want! This will be a camera that you will be happy with for a long time.

Wait Steves report of the production models to see how these really perform.
Digital Dawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2004, 1:24 AM   #7
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 27
Default

You can come away with a factory refurbished 5700 for about 450 at UBid. there are only two really good things about the Kodak- The glass- which is about equal to the 5700s and the menu in a Kodak. Its plastic- not very durable. The 5700 is a better camera overall. thats www.ubid.com/ go to auctions- there is usually at least one in an auction there everyday.Or- check www.streetprices.com/ trhe best comparison search engine I've found.
NikonAISNo1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 23, 2004, 12:40 AM   #8
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 33
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NikonAISNo1
The 5700 is a better camera overall.
Yes the Nikon is more durable and has greater manual controls etc. but again it's hard to compare these cameras. One is CLEARLY aimed at the consumer market (easy to use, big LCD, docking station, very easy software, etc.) The other is Clearly aimed at a more serious minded photographer.

For most people lurking in this forum,yes the Nikon is probably the better choice simply because you know more than the average consumer photographer.
x10guy is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


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 6:50 AM.