TERRIBLE BATTERY LIFE Bad Camera

I have nobody to blame but myself for trusting Kodak again when it comes to digital cameras. Read my last review of an earlier model Kodak camera to see why I should have gone with another brand. The Kodak digital camera that I used to have actually broke ... the lense would no longer come out after a year ... and Kodak releases so many new models of its digital cameras that Walmart refused to take it back and Kodak refuses to fix it because it is past the 30 day warrenty. That should have told me something right there. However, I was given tickets to see David Beckham and the Galaxy play the New England Revolution this weekend and as my old Kodak camera broke and could not be replaced, I figured since I only had a few hours to get to the game, I would not be able to learn a new digital camera ... so I went to Walmart and bought a SIMILAR camera to the one that I hated before and that broke after only a year of use.

My reasoning for doing this is because while just about everything else about Kodak digital cameras is terrible ... the learning curve about taking it out of the box, pointing and shooting is very easy on Kodak digital cameras. I have used some of my friends' more expensive Sonys and other high end brands and I felt as though I was trying to program a cell phone for the first time just to take a picture. The Sony in particular had so many different screens and menus and settings, I could bearly work it. With Kodak ... you won't get good pictures, good product quality ... and you'll get poor multiplied by five battery longevity ... but it will be easy for you to take bad pictures!

I seriously think anyone could be able to figure out Kodak digital cameras ... they are only a few steps more complicated than one of those disposable cameras you buy at the drug store (the point and click kind). However, the pictures probably come out just as good as they would using a $5 disposable camera. Another (well ... the other) thing I like about the Kodaks is that all of their digital cameras have the same screens for the most part and menu format and controls. If you know how to work one, for the most part you can easily work any of them. That is the reason I bought this one ... I figured it would be best to use this, see if Kodak improved on any of the (all) of the features since I bought the last camera from them a year ago and if not, I would just exchange it for a better one.

Needless to say, I will be returning this to Walmart because aside from a few little improvements Kodak made in a year, for the most part ... this thing is a lemon. My biggest complaint about this camera is my biggest complaint about the last camera. There is a computer inside which boots up each time the camera is turned on and off that drains the battery incredibly. A soccer game is about 90 minutes long and during that time I took about 20 pictures and by the end of the game, the battery light was going on. In 90 minutes, it went through 2 fresh AA batteries. If you were to take this on vacation with you where you were doing a whole day of site seeing ... you would be as dissapointed as I was when I brought my last Kodak digital camera to Italy and had to change the batteries 3 - 5 times a day in order to take around 50 - 80 pictures. I bought rechargable batteries to take on another trip and it was better because I didn't have to keep throwing batteries away, but carrying 6 - 8 batteries with you in different pockets and trying to remember which are fresh and which are used because you go through so many is what makes this camera such a bad buy.

The picture quality is another story. I realize that this camera was only a little over $90 at Walmart. I wasn't expecting to take pictures that would be suitable for framing ... but at the same time, it would have been nice to take pictures that I could show to someone without them asking 'what is this I am looking at?' I find that the Kodak is always TOO DARK. If you use the flash and you are taking pictures in a semi-well lit area, it will make the pictures dark. If you take the flash off and take the picture in a semi-well lit area, it will show a lighter picture than one that you used the flash with, but still look too dark. Never use the flash when there is a decent amount of light around. Even inside. If you are outside in the dark, use the flash to light up the subject, but the background will completely dissapear. There is NO happy medium when it comes to taking pictures with this camera. Especially if the subject is close up and there is no light source overhead. You will see shadows and shading that you would never see with another camera. And in bright light, the camera completely washes out pictures and makes faces look washed out and colors look as though you are shooting directly into the sun.

Again, I realize I did not purchase an expensive camera, but lets talk about the 'scene setting'. At first this seems like a really great idea. You turn a dial and have the choice of several special settings that are designed for specific things. There is a 'night setting' and a 'night landscape setting' where you have to hold the camera perfectly still for a few seconds and the shutter opens slower so you can take pictures at night or in darker areas. The pictures will come out blurred and with fuzzy edges on anything in the picture. There is no way to hold this camera and take it without the blurred edges. Maybe with a tripod and self timer. There is also an 'action/sports' setting ... which is a complete joke. While it does freeze the action better than the regular setting, which basically has around a 3-5 second shutter lag. So if you press the button right before someone takes a kick ... you get the person running away 2 seconds later on your screen. Even with the sports setting, there is quite a lag from the time you press the button from the time you actually get an image on the screen. While the person's limbs won't be blurry if they are running because the shutter is faster on the sports setting, you still have the button lag to contend with. So I have about 15 pictures of David Beckham 2 - 3 seconds after kicking the ball. Or right before he kicked the ball. It is impossible to time an action shot with this camera. Or even catch a player looking in your direction. By the time you press the button and the camera takes the picture, he will be moving away in another direction.

The sports setting also will make the picture very grainy, especially if you are using the zoom lense. When I zoomed in on action and used the sports setting, I would have been much better off using the regular setting because the picture is so grainy, it almost looks like it is a mosaic. Its really quite ridiculous. The field is green and there are maroon splotches all over it. The best pictures I took with the camera are done on normal setting with no flash. Everything else was either too dark or too grainy.

The zoom lense on this says its 3X digital and 6X optical. Which is true ... most cameras go to 5X zoom. I was impressed when I saw that the Kodak zooms past that. However, when you get past 3X zoom, everything starts to get really blurry and grainy. In fact, I was only 20 - 30 rows back from the field and in order to take pictures of Beckham when he was in the middle of the field, I had to use the full 6X zoom, which meant all my pictures were grainy, except when he was right up against the wall about 20 - 30 rows from me. Which is pretty surprising because its not actually that far. The person in front of me had a digital camera with a big lense on it ... and while his camera didn't zoom him up any closer than mine did with the 6X lense, his pictures looked crystal clear with the zoom, while mine looked as though someone created the picture as a mosaic using colored tiles. At the end of the game, Beckham walked past our section towards the tunnel, about 50+ feet away. Even at a slow paced walk, it was almost impossible to get more than one picture because the button to picture lag time was terrible.

Part of this is due to something that my old Kodak did not have. This model has a little blue box on the screen that is around whatever object is centered in the picture. When you press the button down, the box turns green around the object and will move with it. I think this slows down the button to picture lag time considerably. When I was in California, I ran into Tommy Lee getting onto his tour bus and was able to get off 3 pictures in about 10 seconds with my old Kodak. With this model, I would be able to get off about 2 clear, well framed pictures in 10 seconds, if I was lucky. The box and the thing the camera does to recognize the subject of the picture really makes it a lot slower when you need to get a quick couple pictures taken.

I think this is 'image stabilization'. However, I do not see any difference in the stabilization of the images compared to my older model Kodak camera which does not have this. Many times, Kodak will put a little green, yellow or red hand in the corner of the picture on the review screen to let you know if the image is good, medium-blurry or blurry. I find most times, the green hand is still blurry, the yellow hand is very blurry and the red hand means you won't even be able to see whats going on in the picture. The only time when the green hand comes up and you can actually get a clear picture is when the people are standing still and posing. This camera is clearly made as a point and click camera for stationary things ... like taking pictures of buildings, objects or groups that are posing for a picture. Anytime there is a little movement, this camera will be completely useless.

The quality of the pictures is not bad. It is 7 megapixel, which is certainly less than the 8 - 14 that has become the standard. However, for the price, it is adequate and if you are posting the pictures on MySpace or EBay, it will actually help them to load faster that they aren't larger files. You can also fit more on a memory card because they are only 7 megapixel. This camera takes the relatively easy to find and inexpensive SD memory cards. I bought a San Disk one for $15 on sale at Walmart.

The flash location is also very weird. It is in the corner of the camera, right where your fingers go when you hold the camera on the sides. This camera is little ... it is about the size of a folded Razor cell phone ... only much thicker. The thickness makes it awkward to try to put in your pocket ... but the size makes it awkward to hold. At least half of the time I take a picture, my fingers cover the flash and I have to retake it. There is really no way to hold this camera where that will not happen unless you hold your fingers straight out when taking a picture, which is very awkward and hard to do. The camera seems like it would be easier to hold if it was longer, and would still be pocket sized.

I do find the screen to be fine in either dark or light ... you will be able to see the picture you are reviewing. The screen is a bit on the small side compared to a lot of the more expensive cameras in the $150 - $250 range. The lense on this camera looks just the same as the one which broke on the last model. It doesn't look like the design has changed. Basically, what happened on my last one was that the lense just stopped coming out of the camera. It is like the motor broke. It is completely unusable and won't even turn on without turning itself right back off. The lense on this camera has the same design, so I can forsee the same problem.

Another big flaw with the Kodak cameras I have owned (this one and the one before) is that the camera takes movie files but I have yet to find the program that will successfully play them back. Windows Media Player won't do it ... either will Real Player or any of the other movie software or players that I have tried. It is a shame because you are unable to take movies you can play back anywhere other than the camera. A lot of the other digital cameras I have seen from other companies save the videos in 'post right to youtube' or 'right to facebook/myspace' format. That way you don't have to convert or not be able to play your movies back. I find this especially frustrating because movies dull your battery more than pictures do, and you can take about 5 - 10 movies before the battery starts to fade, whereas you will get at least 20 - 40 pictures over a period of an hour or two of turning the camera on and off.

One feature this camera does have is an on/off button, so you don't have to worry about the wheel turning a little and wasting your battery in your pocket. This was common in the models before the on/off button. I'd often put the camera in my pocket to take it out an hour later and find the batteries completely dead because the wheel had turned a little from the off position. Of course, you won't get much battery life anyways, but at least you don't have to worry about the camera coming on by itself.

Overall, I would say unless you are very technologically non-savvy and you absolutely do not want to read an instruction manual or deal with complicated features ... don't buy this camera. It might be good for kids' field trips and for older people who are not used to digital photography. But there really isn't any reason you can't find a better camera in the price range that keeps the batteries a little longer and takes better pictures. By all means, if you want a point and shoot camera where you don't have to drop it off to get it developed ... spend $90+ on this. However, if you actually want good picture quality, settings that work and battery power that lasts longer than a single soccer game of turning the camera on and off (actually it will turn itself off after 5 minutes of not taking a picture) ... don't buy this Kodak. In fact, based on my experience with Kodak digital cameras in general, don't buy a Kodak period. I will never buy one again. Its way too cheap ... and at $90+ ... thats really not cheap enough to justify all the draw backs.

If this was a $50 camera, I'd say I wouldn't have any complaints because I wouldn't expect to find a better camera for the price. However, I know there are better cameras in the $90 - $100 price range. In fact, when it comes to digital cameras, it might be smart to put in a little extra and go up to the $150 - $200 price ranges. Sure, the more expensive cameras are a little more complicated to learn, but why bother taking pictures if they aren't going to show other people what it was like to be where you were.

I knew I'd be dissapointed with this and I was. I had hoped Kodak would have fixed some of the problems with the camera since the model I bought a year ago ... especially the battery issue. However, not only did they not fix most of the problems, they added the new one of having that image stabilization thing that takes time off the button to picture lag time. This camera will go back in a couple days for a new one.