zachary Posted June 26, 2006 Share Posted June 26, 2006 From what has been recommended to me so far it looks like I need to re-ask the question now a bit differently... Would you take the Canon A700 over the A620? Are there any advantages the A620 has over the A700? The main reason I would prefer to get my mother the A700 is the bigger LCD (2.5" compared to 2") The extra cost (~$60) is worth it so she can see the screen well and show her pics to friends (i.e. bore them). Is there another camera I should consider. Someone mentioned the Kodaks such as the the C663 or C643. Are the Kodaks picture quality any good? Especially, what about low-light conditions? Now I REALLY need to order by the morning and expedite shipping for it to get here on time! :) Thanks, ZAch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuck_c_charlottenc_ Posted June 26, 2006 Share Posted June 26, 2006 Zach, If you have any respect for $200-$300, then you should really take your time making this decision. Now, you're looking at Kodaks! And, for what reason, I have no idea. Kodak cameras are hardly ever, ever maentioned or suggested on this forum. You should be taking your mother to the stores, introducing her to various cameras, having her touching them and feeling them, after getting some of the best advice you can ever get by listening to the people on this forum, who have listened to your "wants" and have responded with excellent advice. But, now, jumping into buying a camera without totally understanding what you really want could be just a waste of money. Have you read all the reviews on the various cameras that interest you... have you gone to the brick and mortar stores to check them out? Ordering tonight is up to you... but I'd keep "window shopping" if I were you. //Chuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralph_jensen Posted June 26, 2006 Share Posted June 26, 2006 I assume you've read the comprehensive reviews at dpreview: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canona700/ I have the 620 and like it, but the tilting screen and 1cm focus distance were more important to me than the 700's larger but non-tilting screen. Image quality with either Canon should be about the same. Skip the Kodaks; you can't go wrong with either Canon. Since showing pics to her friends is a priority, the 2.5" screen on the 700 probably makes it the best choice for your mom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zachary Posted June 26, 2006 Author Share Posted June 26, 2006 Chuck, yes, I think I read pretty much every review (but there arent so many yet on the a700) and I went to Office Depot to check them out. I really never wanted a kodak its just something someone mentioned on this forum for beginner in digital photography like my mom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zachary Posted June 26, 2006 Author Share Posted June 26, 2006 Also, I just wanted to say to everyone that I really appreciate your help and advice with this. Thanks for taking the time. ZAch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davek57 Posted June 26, 2006 Share Posted June 26, 2006 Zach, Photo.net is populated by numerous Canon and Nikon loyalists. And it's easy to get dissuaded from checking out any other manufacturer's products. I wouldn't omit the Kodaks. The C-series cameras are a little on the skimpy side, but you can land a Kodak Z760 -- which has as much versatility as the A-series Canons -- for about $200. Some A-series cameras have the corner-softness issue that I have not seen in the Z- or DX-series Kodak cameras. Do your homework, but ultimately, the camera that feels best in your hand is the one you'll enjoy using more often. -CD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuck_c_charlottenc_ Posted June 26, 2006 Share Posted June 26, 2006 Zach, Stick with one of the Canon's... like Ralph said. You'll be happy with either one. Sorry, I was somewhat rude... but I wanted you NOT to make a mistake. The Canon cameras are very easy to use in Auto Mode and they produce quality photos. She'll love it. I really have nothing nice to say about Kodaks. //Chuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zane1664879013 Posted June 26, 2006 Share Posted June 26, 2006 Advice like "buy Canon" or "don't buy Kodak" really isn't very useful. Models vary widely, so you have to evaluate them on a camera-by-camera basis. I have a Canon and a Kodak point-n-shoot, and like the picture quality of both just fine. In fact, Kodak's EasyShare is a nice system for home printing of photos: http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=9/150/130/37&pq-locale=en_US It's not the cheapest way to get 4x6" prints, but it is easy and many people like it. Perhaps Canon has something similar, I'm not familiar with their complete lineup. You really should take her along to pick out the camera, though. Ergonomics and common sense vary considerably between cameras and people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zachary Posted June 26, 2006 Author Share Posted June 26, 2006 Chuck thanks for the responses, theres no need for an apology whatsoever. I appreciate your concern. Thanks, ZAch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralph_jensen Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 Dave wrote, "Photo.net is populated by numerous Canon and Nikon loyalists. And it's easy to get dissuaded from checking out any other manufacturer's products. I wouldn't omit the Kodaks." And Zane wrote, "Advice like 'buy Canon' or 'don't buy Kodak' really isn't very useful. Models vary widely, so you have to evaluate them on a camera-by-camera basis." Hmmm. The most respected camera-review site (dpreview.com) has reviewed five Kodak cameras in the sub-$1000 price class: dpreview.com on the Kodak Z650: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/kodakz650/page13.asp "Slightly soft images and lower than average resolution." dpreview.com on the Kodak P880: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/kodakp880/page15.asp "ISO 400 jpgs quite soft." dpreview.com on the Kodak P850: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/kodakp850/page15.asp "Soft images and lower than average resolution." dpreview.com on the Kodak Z740: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/kodakz740/page12.asp "Slightly soft images and lower than average resolution." dpreview.com on the Kodak Z7590: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/kodakdx7590/page9.asp "Not very high resolution - lack of fine detail" "Slightly soft images" My experience with two of the models reviewed above matches dpreview's. Granted, your mom may not notice the difference (or may not care about sharpness). Sharpness isn't everything; Kodak has found a niche based on convenience as opposed to image quality, and I do agree with Dave and Zane that other factors need to be taken into account. But you did specifically ask about the Kodaks' "picture quality," and my response was to that specific question. It's not as though there was no thought behind my dismissal of Kodak cameras. I think that other brands with better i.q. can be just as convenient to use, the Canons included. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zane1664879013 Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 If you're going to single out sharpness as the only attribute of picture quality then the Kodaks do not compare well. But you neglected to mention that in every review you posted a link for, the Kodaks were praised for good color, good exposure, good flash performance, ease of use, and features. Those count for a lot, especially for someone looking to do easy snapshooting and not producing big enlargements. Besides, the sharpness out of the Kodak cameras is just fine for 4x6" prints. If you want to print larger than that you should be doing post-processing on the computer anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_lee10 Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 The A620 has a 2 inch flip screen while the A700 has a 2.5 inch non-flip screen. To me, the main issue is that the A620 has a faster lens f2.8-f4.1 while the A700 has a slower f2.8-f4.8. Slower lens means using higher ISO speed thus noise issues are very important for these tiny sensors. It could mean using ISO 400 on the A700 or ISO 200 on the A620. ISO 400 for these tiny sensors are not known for it's clean images. Which is more important to you, a bigger screen but noisy images ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
don_e Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 "Would you take the Canon A700 over the A620? Are there any advantages the A620 has over the A700? The main reason I would prefer to get my mother the A700 is the bigger LCD (2.5" compared to 2")" Zachary, Different sizes, yes, but the same number of pixels, I recollect. Good Luck, Don E Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilsontsoi Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 Given the two choices, the <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation?presentation_id=317651">Canon A620</a> is a no brainer to me due to its versatile swivel screen and familiarity with previous <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation?presentation_id=273209">A80.</a> Nikon, Canon, Kodak, etc. doesn't matter as long as you have a model that works for your shooting style, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 <a href="http://www.citysnaps.net/PAweb6-21-06">Here are some</a> A620 pics... Have had the cam for a few days and like it a lot. www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg M Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 Absolutely, skip Kodak. The one time I tried a Kodak, the DX6440, a 4 megapixel camera, the high quality JPEG files in most cases came out of the camera taking up less than 1 MB in space! Kodak compresses the heck out of images, and I see it mentioned all the time when I take the little time I do to read reviews of their cameras and that's the last thing you want. The A620 is one heck of a good camera- I've not read up on the A700 yet, but I have no doubt either is a much better choice than any Kodak model you could name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phule Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 Kodak's advantage is on the software side where, I will admit, for the non-computer user it's very straight forward and fairly easy to learn/use. But, in my opinion and in my experience, the quality of Kodak images from their digital cameras leave a lot to be desired. If you're looking for a camera that does well in low-light conditions, you should consider the Fuji F30. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zachary Posted June 27, 2006 Author Share Posted June 27, 2006 Thank You everyone for responding. I went with the A700 for my mom because of the larger LCD. But seeing how much everyone loves their A620, I may just need to get one for myself, as I was always looking for a compact when I dont want to carry around my dslr. Thanks Again, ZAch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuck_c_charlottenc_ Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 Zach, Buying a Canon A620 as a carry-around in place of the DSLR is a great idea. About six months ago I bought a Canon SD400, which is nice and small and easy to carry in any pocket, that I take with me all the time since taking my Canon 20d is rather cumbersome. I still use my 20d quite alot, but I usually use it on planned trips / occasions where I think I need it and I can "watch it". I also just found a great "Close Out" price ($150) on a Fuji F10 that I use for low light / non flash situations. Check out the new Fuji's too... you might like the ability to use ISO's as high as 800 and 1600. But, it's fun to have a camera available, on your person, for capturing pictures you would have never gotten, otherwise. //Chuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zachary Posted June 28, 2006 Author Share Posted June 28, 2006 Done. I am the proud new owner of the A620. $215 with free two day shipping. Looks great! ZAch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zachary Posted June 28, 2006 Author Share Posted June 28, 2006 Chuck, check your email. ZAch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuck_c_charlottenc_ Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 Zach, Great! Let us know what you think of both the A700 and A620 after you use them for awhile. I know the A700 will be with your mother, but I'm sure you'll get an impression of it. Just add to this post and we'll check in a week or so. //Chuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zachary Posted June 30, 2006 Author Share Posted June 30, 2006 Well both of the cameras arrived and my first impressions are as follows: 1)Both are quite similar in layout, operation, (even body size and weight (different but not enormously different)) 2) I am happy I got my mom the A700 because the screen is much bigger (although a bit more grainy) 3)I havent had so much shooting experience yet but I had the chance to take a short walk with my A620 and here are the first couple shots... Thanks for the imput everyone. My mom and I are both really happy with the cameras. ZAch<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zachary Posted June 30, 2006 Author Share Posted June 30, 2006 Flower (macro mode)<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zachary Posted June 30, 2006 Author Share Posted June 30, 2006 Bird<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now