Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
If I got a kodak?
- Thread starter carve
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The software that comes with the camera is EasyShare, and it's pretty good. You can download it from their web site if you want to try it out (requires registration IIRC).
It's not as good as iPhoto though (or even as good as Picasa for Windows). Oh, and the camera can most certainly be used with any other program.
It's not as good as iPhoto though (or even as good as Picasa for Windows). Oh, and the camera can most certainly be used with any other program.
Most likely whatever it is can be used with iphoto.macluver101 said:I'm thinking about getting a kodak digital camera but i was wondering if the program software that comes with the camera is good or can be used with a different program?
Thanks
If you don't know anything about cameras and don't want any control over the picture and want it to be auto everything get a Kodak. I actually had a $400 kodak camera and there was a lot of nice manual features but compared to dSLR it sucked.
And about the software, most programs that come free with most cheap cameras usually suck and I don't recommend them. If your a mac user iPhoto should be fine. If your a PC user and can't get Adobe Bridge or anything try Google Picasa.
And about the software, most programs that come free with most cheap cameras usually suck and I don't recommend them. If your a mac user iPhoto should be fine. If your a PC user and can't get Adobe Bridge or anything try Google Picasa.
Sure, not everyone wants a dSLR, but I wouldn't agree with the statement that if you know nothing about cameras you should get a Kodak. In my personal opinion and I'm sure other reviewer's opinions, there are better cameras for these types of buyers that ones made my Kodak.HckySo said:
Kodak make some of the most ugly and clunky cameras known to man. As a company they're loosing billions - who knows how much longer they'll be around to honour your warranty.
There are other manufacturers who invest more in product development, and have more interesting cameras for better prices. Take a look at Canon and Panasonic to start with.
There are other manufacturers who invest more in product development, and have more interesting cameras for better prices. Take a look at Canon and Panasonic to start with.
And yet, in the US Kodak has been %1 in terms of digital camera sales since 2004 http://blogs.zdnet.com/ITFacts/index.php?blogthis=1&p=8579.firestarter said:
That said, I have been very happy with all of my Canon cameras, particularly the digitial ones. I would tend to buy a Canon again, though Kodak may make sense for many other people. e.g. I wish my parents had bought an EasyShare camera instead of the Sony thing they bought. The Sony takes nice pictures and has nice features, but the UI is painful to use.
B
balamw said:
You mean 21%.
Yeah - and you know what, there's a LOT of people out there with very bad taste.
Lots of Windows owners out there too!
firestarter said:
I don't disagree with you on any of the technical or aesthetic merits of Kodak cameras or the tastes of those who own them. However, I think to dismiss Kodak as near the point of going out of business, sounds very mugh like the calls of "Apple is dying" that have been around for years and years, at least until they released an iPod for Windows and took over that market entirely.
Kodak is in the midst of reinventing itself after the business model that made it big has been threatened on two fronts, Fuji makes better film products for many uses and of course digital. They may be burning cash right now, but they have managed to go from nothing to #1 in digital cameras in the US in a short period of time.
Don't count them out just yet...
B
Wes Jordan said:
I've been burned by Kodak before. It sucked, bad. I'd suggest that before you dedicate yourself to getting a Kodak you look at some of the other cameras out there. Canon has a really amazingly simple to use and understand UI that is consistent across their cameras-- good for upgrading. Kodak's is a bit harder to get used to, although might be a bit easier to see. Olympus tends to have the 'fastest' UI, as in, you can switch between settings very quickly, but it's really hard to learn. Sony cameras I'm not too fond of either, although their DV cams are nice.
Way more female Kodak users from statistics I've seen. Guess Kodak's "kodak moment" marketing at work.
jared_kipe said:
Without a doubt. Kodak has great marketing and consumers generally have a very positive image of Kodak and simply their brand recognition alone will keep them alive.
But we know the reality of their products...
Personally, I am addicted to Canon. I couldn't be happier with my 3 year old S400. Kodak isn't that bad though, as long as you have modest demands. I got my girlfriend a CX7430 last year, and it is actually decent, especially for the money. The pictures are decent (though not as good as a Canon), the build quality is not the best, but they stay in one piece, and the menus have a little less of a learning curve than most others. So, while I would never want one, I think there are a lot of people for whom the priceerfromance ratio of a Kodak is just right.
erfromance ratio of a Kodak is just right.I've had two Kodak cameras (gave the old one to my niece) and they are amazingly simple to use and take decent pictures. I also have a Canon. The Kodak has a nice lens and I use it to take candid snaps and as a backup. It's good for the first step into digital photography. Their EasyShare system prints true 5 x 7 where iPhoto doesn't. It adapts easily with your computer. I also really like my Canon. Each has it own use. Buy what works for you.