Kodak 14MP Digital Camera

The instruction book has Chapter 11 - I mean 11 chapters, right?

As someone who loves their DSLR (as well as my old film based SLRs)I can think of several reasons:

  1. no need to lug around a camera bag/backpack etc.
  2. less hassle in public transport (see #1)
  3. nothing screams “tourist” like a big camera bag
    4)easier to get yourself in the picture by holding it out in front of you vs a DSLR
  4. P&S technology has improved a lot and is capable of taking excellent pictures (good photographer + mediocre camera > mediocre photographer + good camera)

Which is why I generally travel overseas with a P&S that’s pocket sized unless I think I will be doing a lot of wildlife/sports shots and travelling primarily by car.

Why is it that every time someone makes a reference to an Apple product, the comments get deleted immediately?

I’ve had 3 EasyShare cameras and loved them all. I definitely recommend them to someone who just wants to take pictures without anything fancy.

Maybe your Grandma is more interested in “seeing” the photo than fiddling with settings? Not everyone is Ansel Adams. I personally love going out with an old 5MP fixed focus, no zoom Kodak on some days. Take a look:


But these latest models with the higher res are really sweet!

Hey it’s time for a buzzkill on rage, these are off topic. :slight_smile: Let’s stick to the Kodak camera on sale.

In for 1

Been needing a camera since the old lady moved out and took “ours” and this looks perfect. Cheap, small, 14mp, and some decent reviews.

Sorry, I thought I was defending your (woot!) position… my other posts have been on topic.

referenced post deleted…

Couldn’t agree more. Kodak repeatedly ignored calls from internal sources to move to digital, but ignored them because they would “Cannibalize” their film market… Unfortunately, they refused to recognize the fact that they were not a film company but a company that merely delivered pictures to the end user via the medium that was available at the time.

Actually, the megapixel number absolutely makes a difference in quality and detail. No matter the manufacturer, a 14 megapixel camera will be way more detailed than a 2.9 megapixel camera. It’s simple math. It’s like saying that an old 800 x 600 computer monitor is just as detailed as a monitor with 1920 x 1080.

That is not to say that your older camera was not better in low light. It very well could be. However, given the same lighting circumstances, the 14 MP camera would still show more detail.

Kodak’s going belly up!! As a former employee I just got a letter regarding their bankruptcy proceedings. Who are you going to call if it fails?? Their digital cameras never measured up to everyone else’s anyway. I bought two of them through the years and they sucked. Wait for a deal on an Olympus.

Wifey’s camera just malfunctioned and it was going to cost more to repair than this little beauty here. In for 1.

Ordered mine. Awesome camera!

Going? Gone? Re-organization. They still have to honor warranties by law.

Kodak has made consumer cameras for 12 years. I reviewed one of their first consumer 1 MP digitals back then. But,like drugs, they were hooked on the golden goose of “consumables” film, paper, processing chemicals, medical imaging, etc. I don’t think they believed it could happen so fast, even though they could easily look back to the 70’s when camcorders wiped out movie cameras almost overnight.

Wasn’t Apple’s Quicktake camera made by Kodak?

I bought 3 of the 12 megapixel versions from woot last year – one has committed suicide–
but note that on them and this one the specs say 14 mp EFFECTIVE effective?
effective? while you don’t really get 14 megapixels …
It delivers a compressed jpeg only…
when the one had I was used I noticed that the jpgs it delivered were smaller than the ones my 7 megapixel canon delivers…
with little canons there is a hack – a patch that goes on the memory card – from Canon, that lets you tweak sittings – like delivering raw format or adjusting the compression ratios on the jpg…
PS – I have been doing photography since 1962 and computers since 1982
The Woot blurb says it will pick up all sorts of detail, do bad it doesn’t include them in the picture…
An uncompressed 14 mg image with a jpg embedded would take up 16m on a card, that’s 500 pictures on an 8g card…
my older canon which shoots a raw 6m and 2m jpg puts a 1000 pictures on an eight g card…
So I don’t understand why the cameras won’t give you a full uncompressed image… other than maybe it doesn’t really take one?

If you are considering the purchase of this camera, you need to investigate how functional this camera is without EasyShare. The EasyShare EULA can be found at:


I psid a lot of money once for a Kodak e-picture frame that had WiFi capability. Thought it would be really cool to stuff photos into it from anywhere on my network. Turns out that EasyShare doesn’t work that way; what the frame really does is function as a monitor into a file posting space that you create on EasyShare (that Kodak, and EVERYONE ELSE covered by the EULA, has rights to). So I was back to SD cards and sneaker-net.

Oh, to say NOTHING of the fact that EasyShare is an immediate back-door into your system…

Anyone, I am not electronically inclined, photo either; would this camera be worth getting a 17yo for just taking pictures and them uploading them to digital work on them online?

Simple… because it’s expendable. If it gets lost, stolen, lifted at customs, etc. it won’t hurt very much.