File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
i am looking for a some what cheap, but good cuality camera, that is not really porfecional
if any one could help it woulb be great
>> Anonymous
I smell troll, but I'll bite.

You can't go wrong as far as point and shoots for non-serious photographers with Canon.

For broke serious photographers, their A-series offers decent quality and manual controls, but I take that isn't you. Even if you're not a serious photographer, the A-series is worth looking at, but from your picture I gather you're looking for something a bit sleeker looking.
>> Anonymous
>>239624
what do u think of kodak cameras??? some one told me they were ok
and i just want a good cuality, camera that can give me some options, and that can actually take pics
>> Anonymous
if not canon, nikon also makes some "pretty good for the price" type cameras. Better than kodaks, IMO. Kodaks cameras are feature packed but lack where it counts, image quality.
>> Anonymous
>>239628
thanks!!! that is really good info = ]
>> Anonymous
>>239625
No. I remember hearing a few years back they tend to have good sensors but bad lenses.

Just go with Canon. This one will probably work well:

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=145&modelid=16347#
ModelDetailAct
>> Anonymous
I honestly don't understand where you people are coming from. Kodak is one of the great pioneer companies in photography and it's been around even longer than Nikon. Given that a lot of their development budget over the company's life has been focused on the production of better photosensitive devices. You'd seriously be at a loss if you were to simply ignore kodak's great achievements in the field of photography and their contributions even today.

Schneider optics, which are used in OP's camera are also some of the leading optics manufacturers in Germany, most certainly on par with the Carl Zeiss of old, pretty much like Leica, except heavily underrated.

As for this camera, you need no more than take a swift look around the camera to know it's a really good camera for the money. First off, Kodak took it's cue for ergonomics from professional SLR designs. This isn't a flimsy camera and it isn't difficult to handle (unlike a certain entry-level model produced by Canon). Its control menus are certainly on par with Nikons' fantastic ones, if not better, given that there is a much better integration in this camera's system than there is with Nikon's entry level SLR's, perhaps even a higher level. The optics and imaging device are certainly where it's at with this model, however. Through Kodak's expertise (and history) in the creation of light-sensitive devices, you can most certainly assume, without a doubt, that this camera is at a whole different level than you'd find in an SLR. This sensor, coupled with Schneider's optics makes gives this camera the edge over the similarly-priced cameras produced by the Japanese market.

You guys need to do some reading on these companies instead of dissing OP's camera. You'll realize how much you've missed and even lost by buying an expensive all-in-one SLR system when you could have achieved comparable/superior quality images from a well-priced, spot-on solution as the one OP has put on the table.
>> Anonymous
>>239635
>>239629
>>239625
>>239622

samefag
>> Anonymous
wrong, good try though
>> Anonymous
>>239635
i can't tell if it's an epic troll or someone that's just genuinely wrong.

kodak hasn't been a big player in the camera field for forever, it seems.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I honestly don't understand where you people are coming from. Kodak is one of the great pioneer companies in photography and it's been around even longer than Nikon. Given that a lot of their development budget over the company's life has been focused on the production of better photosensitive devices. You'd seriously be at a loss if you were to simply ignore kodak's great achievements in the field of photography and their contributions even today.

Schneider optics, which are used in OP's camera are also some of the leading optics manufacturers in Germany, most certainly on par with the Carl Zeiss of old, pretty much like Leica, except heavily underrated.

As for this camera, you need no more than take a swift look around the camera to know it's a really good camera for the money. First off, Kodak took it's cue for ergonomics from professional SLR designs. This isn't a flimsy camera and it isn't difficult to handle (unlike a certain entry-level model produced by Canon). Its control menus are certainly on par with Nikons' fantastic ones, if not better, given that there is a much better integration in this camera's system than there is with Nikon's entry level SLR's, perhaps even a higher level. The optics and imaging device are certainly where it's at with this model, however. Through Kodak's expertise (and history) in the creation of light-sensitive devices, you can most certainly assume, without a doubt, that this camera is at a whole different level than you'd find in an SLR. This sensor, coupled with Schneider's optics makes gives this camera the edge over the similarly-priced cameras produced by the Japanese market.

You guys need to do some reading on these companies instead of dissing OP's camera. You'll realize how much you've missed and even lost by buying an expensive all-in-one SLR system when you could have achieved comparable/superior quality images from a well-priced, spot-on solution as the one OP has put on the table.
>> Anonymous
>>239640

epic copypasta

and kodak still makes epic sensors that cost more than a house
>> Anonymous
sd1000 gets my vote.
>> Anonymous
>>239635
Real Schneider optics = awesome.
That =! Schneider design, AFAIK.
This post = copypasta, I remember it.

Seriously, how do people care enough about 4chan generally and /p/ in particular to have craploads of saved copypasta, image macros, etc?
>> Anonymous
>>239642

yeah, they still make good sensors, but they haven't made a good complete camera in ages.
>> Anonymous
>>239645

do i have to remind you 4chan is an imageboard?

people have folders and folders dedicated to their favorite boards
>> Anonymous
>>239648
Yeah, I know.

I was saying that's a little silly and a waste of hard drive space. Original content much?