Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Kodak cx6445 vs cx7430 vs Other 4MP?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
January 10, 2005 3:31:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi,

I really need some help buying a new digital camera!

I'm looking for a compact 4MP camera that takes SD cards, uses AA
batteries (not some proprietary Lithium ion cell like in the Canon
SD200), has some manual settings, decent flash range, and good bright
pictures in *indoor* settings. Video with sound is also preferred.

I've noticed that the cx7430 is priced a little bit more than the cx6445
at Best Buy (Canada). The 6445 has 4x optical zoom and a higher flash
range, along with the Schneider lens.. But why is it priced less than
the cx7430, which seems a bit more basic to me?

Another camera I have in mind is the Panasonic DMC LC-70. The reviews
look good. Mind you, I had an LC-33 before and enjoyed using it except
I was not impressed with the flash at all.

Nikon Coolpix 3200 has been advertised a lot lately. It includes an
AF-assist lamp but has no manual ISO settings, and the indoor pictures
are apparently grainy.

Opinions on these and/or other cameras?

Thanks!
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 5:57:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Nobody wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I really need some help buying a new digital camera!
>
> I'm looking for a compact 4MP camera that takes SD cards, uses AA
> batteries (not some proprietary Lithium ion cell like in the Canon
> SD200), has some manual settings, decent flash range, and good bright
> pictures in *indoor* settings. Video with sound is also preferred.
>
> I've noticed that the cx7430 is priced a little bit more than the cx6445
> at Best Buy (Canada). The 6445 has 4x optical zoom and a higher flash
> range, along with the Schneider lens.. But why is it priced less than
> the cx7430, which seems a bit more basic to me?
>
> Another camera I have in mind is the Panasonic DMC LC-70. The reviews
> look good. Mind you, I had an LC-33 before and enjoyed using it except
> I was not impressed with the flash at all.
>
> Nikon Coolpix 3200 has been advertised a lot lately. It includes an
> AF-assist lamp but has no manual ISO settings, and the indoor pictures
> are apparently grainy.
>
> Opinions on these and/or other cameras?
>
> Thanks!

I have a DX6440, which is a 2004 model series, and I really enjoy the 4x
zoom. The flash range on this camera is quite adequate, IF you remember
that using the zoom REDUCES the flash range, so don't use the zoom for
composing indoor shots, move closer. I find the DX6440 very easy to
use, and extrememly flexible for a P&S camera. It takes pictures with
good color, relatively low noise, allows some manual settings, and is
small enough to fit in a coat, or trouser pocket (a hard rule for camera
selection here).


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
January 10, 2005 10:17:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Is the CX6445 really the same as the DX6440, minus the aperture/shutter
priority setting on the dial?


>
> I have a DX6440, which is a 2004 model series, and I really enjoy the 4x
> zoom. The flash range on this camera is quite adequate, IF you remember
> that using the zoom REDUCES the flash range, so don't use the zoom for
> composing indoor shots, move closer. I find the DX6440 very easy to
> use, and extrememly flexible for a P&S camera. It takes pictures with
> good color, relatively low noise, allows some manual settings, and is
> small enough to fit in a coat, or trouser pocket (a hard rule for camera
> selection here).
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 1:10:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Nobody wrote:
> Is the CX6445 really the same as the DX6440, minus the aperture/shutter
> priority setting on the dial?
>
>
>>
>> I have a DX6440, which is a 2004 model series, and I really enjoy the
>> 4x zoom. The flash range on this camera is quite adequate, IF you
>> remember that using the zoom REDUCES the flash range, so don't use the
>> zoom for composing indoor shots, move closer. I find the DX6440 very
>> easy to use, and extrememly flexible for a P&S camera. It takes
>> pictures with good color, relatively low noise, allows some manual
>> settings, and is small enough to fit in a coat, or trouser pocket (a
>> hard rule for camera selection here).
>>
>>

This may be a Canada only camera, but the review I just read indicates
manual aperture and shutter settings. I have the DX6440 and I am
completely pleased with it.
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 1:24:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Actually it is available in the US as well, through Dell.com. What I
meant to say is that the CX6445 does not have the manual
aperture/shutter settings like the DX, but otherwise they seem the
same. They have already discontinued the DX6440 at Staples, so maybe
I should grab the CX at Best Buy before they discontinue that one as
well. The CX and DX 7000's have been out for a few months now, so they
would be phasing the 6000's out.

> >>
> >>
>
> This may be a Canada only camera, but the review I just read
indicates
> manual aperture and shutter settings. I have the DX6440 and I am
> completely pleased with it.
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 6:02:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

sprite_junk@hotmail.com wrote:
> Actually it is available in the US as well, through Dell.com. What I
> meant to say is that the CX6445 does not have the manual
> aperture/shutter settings like the DX, but otherwise they seem the
> same. They have already discontinued the DX6440 at Staples, so maybe
> I should grab the CX at Best Buy before they discontinue that one as
> well. The CX and DX 7000's have been out for a few months now, so they
> would be phasing the 6000's out.
>
>
>>>>
>>This may be a Canada only camera, but the review I just read
>
> indicates
>
>>manual aperture and shutter settings. I have the DX6440 and I am
>>completely pleased with it.
>
>
At the current prices, the CS6445 is an excellent value. Get it if you can.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
January 11, 2005 12:38:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ok, I went out and got the CX6445 tonight.. but ... I am extremely
disappointed. Ron, your DX6440 must be a whole different camera,
because purchasing the CX was a total waste of time for me. This was my
3rd digital camera and it seems like I just downgraded my camera. It
has the Schneider lens, but that it is all it has going for it. One
minute after taking it out of the box, I was able to find 5 things that
I did not like about it at all. Flimsy doors and bad design. Picture
quality is bad; they contain minimal noise but are blurry as hell and
not even close to the size of a 4 MP picture (used 'Best 3:2' quality).
Zooming into a picture during playback takes a while. No On/Off
switch; instead, you have to switch through the scene modes before you
can turn it off. No white balance. A joystick instead of navigation
buttons, which is difficult to use and bound to snap off some day. Plus
I cannot find a battery meter!

On the other hand, the flash is OK and it has 4x optical zoom. ;-) Oh
well, I guess you get what you paid for.

Anyways, maybe it's good for other people, but it doesn't work for me.
It's going back to Best Buy... maybe i'll go back to owning another
Panasonic.


-D.


Ron Hunter wrote:
> sprite_junk@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> Actually it is available in the US as well, through Dell.com. What I
>> meant to say is that the CX6445 does not have the manual
>> aperture/shutter settings like the DX, but otherwise they seem the
>> same. They have already discontinued the DX6440 at Staples, so maybe
>> I should grab the CX at Best Buy before they discontinue that one as
>> well. The CX and DX 7000's have been out for a few months now, so they
>> would be phasing the 6000's out.
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>> This may be a Canada only camera, but the review I just read
>>
>>
>> indicates
>>
>>> manual aperture and shutter settings. I have the DX6440 and I am
>>> completely pleased with it.
>>
>>
>>
> At the current prices, the CS6445 is an excellent value. Get it if you
> can.
>
>
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 4:18:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Nobody wrote:
> Ok, I went out and got the CX6445 tonight.. but ... I am extremely
> disappointed. Ron, your DX6440 must be a whole different camera,
> because purchasing the CX was a total waste of time for me. This was my
> 3rd digital camera and it seems like I just downgraded my camera. It
> has the Schneider lens, but that it is all it has going for it. One
> minute after taking it out of the box, I was able to find 5 things that
> I did not like about it at all. Flimsy doors and bad design. Picture
> quality is bad; they contain minimal noise but are blurry as hell and
> not even close to the size of a 4 MP picture (used 'Best 3:2' quality).
> Zooming into a picture during playback takes a while. No On/Off
> switch; instead, you have to switch through the scene modes before you
> can turn it off. No white balance. A joystick instead of navigation
> buttons, which is difficult to use and bound to snap off some day. Plus
> I cannot find a battery meter!
>
> On the other hand, the flash is OK and it has 4x optical zoom. ;-) Oh
> well, I guess you get what you paid for.
>
> Anyways, maybe it's good for other people, but it doesn't work for me.
> It's going back to Best Buy... maybe i'll go back to owning another
> Panasonic.
>
>
> -D.
>
>
The doors ARE flimsy, but in a year, I have had no problems with mine.
I suspect that you are having a problem with HOW to use the 6445. You
MUST push the shutter button half-way down, wait until the green light
comes back on, then press it the rest of the way down to get properly
focused pictures. This DOES take some practice, but will produce
extremely nice pictures.

Most cameras, and all Kodak cameras I know of, use the mode switch to
turn on the camera. I don't like that feature, but it is pretty much a
standard on P&S cameras.
No manual white balance has been no problem for me in a year, and about
1600 pictures. The automatic function does a great job. The joystick
navigation gets great marks with reviewers, and I have no problem with
it. When the batteries get low, an indicator appears. If you want a
real battery meter, you will need to be using something like Sony's
'infolithium' batteries that provide a charge indication. This really
isn't feasible with NIMH batteries whose voltage and current are stable
until they are almost depleted.

Perhaps you would be happier with a DSLR, but don't expect to put it in
your pocket, even though your pocket should be nicely empty after the
purchase.



--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 9:25:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Yes, I am aware of pressing the button halfway for the autofocus to
kick in. Actually I have been doing that with all cameras I've owned.
What puzzles me as well is the file size, they were between 350 KB to
750 KB, which is much smaller than that found in other 3 MP camera's
I've tried (at least 1 MB files). There appears to be a lack of detail
in the pictures; in fact they look like pictures taken with my first
digital camera, the Kodak *2MP* CX4230! I did use the Best quality
setting, which is for 4MP. Could it be that it is just a 2MP camera
masquerading as a 4MP through interpolation?

Apart from that, I do miss some of the manual settings such as ISO
adjustment and white balance. Perhaps I am accustomed to my old
Panasonic camera's features, but these settings are becoming standard
on most decent point-and-shoots.


D.


> The doors ARE flimsy, but in a year, I have had no problems with
mine.
> I suspect that you are having a problem with HOW to use the 6445.
You
> MUST push the shutter button half-way down, wait until the green
light
> comes back on, then press it the rest of the way down to get properly

> focused pictures. This DOES take some practice, but will produce
> extremely nice pictures.
>
> Most cameras, and all Kodak cameras I know of, use the mode switch to

> turn on the camera. I don't like that feature, but it is pretty much
a
> standard on P&S cameras.
> No manual white balance has been no problem for me in a year, and
about
> 1600 pictures. The automatic function does a great job. The
joystick
> navigation gets great marks with reviewers, and I have no problem
with
> it. When the batteries get low, an indicator appears. If you want a

> real battery meter, you will need to be using something like Sony's
> 'infolithium' batteries that provide a charge indication. This
really
> isn't feasible with NIMH batteries whose voltage and current are
stable
> until they are almost depleted.
>
> Perhaps you would be happier with a DSLR, but don't expect to put it
in
> your pocket, even though your pocket should be nicely empty after the
> purchase.
>
>
>
> --
> Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 12:48:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

sprite_junk@hotmail.com wrote:
> Yes, I am aware of pressing the button halfway for the autofocus to
> kick in. Actually I have been doing that with all cameras I've owned.
> What puzzles me as well is the file size, they were between 350 KB to
> 750 KB, which is much smaller than that found in other 3 MP camera's
> I've tried (at least 1 MB files). There appears to be a lack of detail
> in the pictures; in fact they look like pictures taken with my first
> digital camera, the Kodak *2MP* CX4230! I did use the Best quality
> setting, which is for 4MP. Could it be that it is just a 2MP camera
> masquerading as a 4MP through interpolation?
>
> Apart from that, I do miss some of the manual settings such as ISO
> adjustment and white balance. Perhaps I am accustomed to my old
> Panasonic camera's features, but these settings are becoming standard
> on most decent point-and-shoots.
>
>
> D.
>
Perhaps you could compare the pictures you are getting with some of mine
which are on www.webshots.com. Look for userid rphunter42. The
pictures since Feb. 2003 are taken with a DX6440.
I am not fond of manual settings, since the camera can usually do a
better job of these settings than I can, and I am free to take the picture.




--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 3:54:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron,
Thanks.. The flower bushes in the foreground of the YARD1 picture are
kind of blurry and the colours look washed out. This is what I mean.
When I use a different camera they come clearer. Also the size of the
photo is small like my pictures, did you reduce it?

Anyways, I went out today bought the Panasonic 4MP DMC-LC70. It was on
sale and only $50 (CDN) more than the cx6445. What a beaut! I'll try
it out when I get home and perhaps post on my findings.

- D

Ron Hunter wrote:
> sprite_junk@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Yes, I am aware of pressing the button halfway for the autofocus to
> > kick in. Actually I have been doing that with all cameras I've
owned.
> > What puzzles me as well is the file size, they were between 350 KB
to
> > 750 KB, which is much smaller than that found in other 3 MP
camera's
> > I've tried (at least 1 MB files). There appears to be a lack of
detail
> > in the pictures; in fact they look like pictures taken with my
first
> > digital camera, the Kodak *2MP* CX4230! I did use the Best quality
> > setting, which is for 4MP. Could it be that it is just a 2MP
camera
> > masquerading as a 4MP through interpolation?
> >
> > Apart from that, I do miss some of the manual settings such as ISO
> > adjustment and white balance. Perhaps I am accustomed to my old
> > Panasonic camera's features, but these settings are becoming
standard
> > on most decent point-and-shoots.
> >
> >
> > D.
> >
> Perhaps you could compare the pictures you are getting with some of
mine
> which are on www.webshots.com. Look for userid rphunter42. The
> pictures since Feb. 2003 are taken with a DX6440.
> I am not fond of manual settings, since the camera can usually do a
> better job of these settings than I can, and I am free to take the
picture.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 6:47:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

sprite_junk@hotmail.com wrote:
> Ron,
> Thanks.. The flower bushes in the foreground of the YARD1 picture are
> kind of blurry and the colours look washed out. This is what I mean.
> When I use a different camera they come clearer. Also the size of the
> photo is small like my pictures, did you reduce it?

All the photos on webshots are compressed. Also, Kodak's firmware does
a rather aggressive compression, so files are smaller than most 4mp
cameras. Some say they shouldn't compress so much. I tend to agree.

>
> Anyways, I went out today bought the Panasonic 4MP DMC-LC70. It was on
> sale and only $50 (CDN) more than the cx6445. What a beaut! I'll try
> it out when I get home and perhaps post on my findings.
>
> - D



would like to see some of your photos.

>
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>>sprite_junk@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>Yes, I am aware of pressing the button halfway for the autofocus to
>>>kick in. Actually I have been doing that with all cameras I've
>
> owned.
>
>>>What puzzles me as well is the file size, they were between 350 KB
>
> to
>
>>>750 KB, which is much smaller than that found in other 3 MP
>
> camera's
>
>>>I've tried (at least 1 MB files). There appears to be a lack of
>
> detail
>
>>>in the pictures; in fact they look like pictures taken with my
>
> first
>
>>>digital camera, the Kodak *2MP* CX4230! I did use the Best quality
>>>setting, which is for 4MP. Could it be that it is just a 2MP
>
> camera
>
>>>masquerading as a 4MP through interpolation?
>>>
>>>Apart from that, I do miss some of the manual settings such as ISO
>>>adjustment and white balance. Perhaps I am accustomed to my old
>>>Panasonic camera's features, but these settings are becoming
>
> standard
>
>>>on most decent point-and-shoots.
>>>
>>>
>>>D.
>>>
>>
>>Perhaps you could compare the pictures you are getting with some of
>
> mine
>
>>which are on www.webshots.com. Look for userid rphunter42. The
>>pictures since Feb. 2003 are taken with a DX6440.
>>I am not fond of manual settings, since the camera can usually do a
>>better job of these settings than I can, and I am free to take the
>
> picture.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
>
>
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 8:48:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter wrote:
> sprite_junk@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Ron,
> > Thanks.. The flower bushes in the foreground of the YARD1 picture
are
> > kind of blurry and the colours look washed out. This is what I
mean.
> > When I use a different camera they come clearer. Also the size of
the
> > photo is small like my pictures, did you reduce it?
>
> All the photos on webshots are compressed. Also, Kodak's firmware
does
> a rather aggressive compression, so files are smaller than most 4mp
> cameras. Some say they shouldn't compress so much. I tend to agree.
>
> >
> > Anyways, I went out today bought the Panasonic 4MP DMC-LC70. It
was on
> > sale and only $50 (CDN) more than the cx6445. What a beaut! I'll
try
> > it out when I get home and perhaps post on my findings.
> >
> > - D
>
>
>
> would like to see some of your photos.

I'll sign up with Webshots this weekend if I find some time. Thanks.
!