Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Canon A95 vs Kodak cx 6445

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 1:37:09 PM

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

please compare all aspects of both the cameras and advice on which to buy.
If a detailed comparision of all the features is done, it would be of great
help to me. This is my first purchase of a digital camera.
Ravi

--
Message posted via http://www.photokb.com

More about : canon a95 kodak 6445

Anonymous
February 8, 2005 1:37:10 PM

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

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 10:37:09 GMT, "Ravi Kumar M via PhotoKB.com"
<forum@PhotoKB.com> wrote:

>please compare all aspects of both the cameras and advice on which to buy.
>If a detailed comparision of all the features is done, it would be of great
>help to me. This is my first purchase of a digital camera.
>Ravi

BTW: the Kodak CX6445 doesn't exist.

Go here: http://www.imaging-resource.com/ ... Compare Models

& read the reviews here: http://www.dcviews.com/,
http://www.dpreview.com/, http://www.steves-digicams.com/

Hap
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 1:37:10 PM

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

The CX6445 seems to be a re-labled DX6440... They were specifically for
sale through Dell and Sams Club.... I have called kodak on this and
they couldn't find any differences.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 1:37:11 PM

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

Actually, the Kodak CX6445 DOES exist. Here's a link at Kodak's website:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/products/ekn0294...

I'm interested in that model too because someone on the Internet is selling
one new-in-box for $120 shipped. It's a 4-megapixel P&S with 4x zoom, uses
SD cards. I've actually posted an "Opinions" thread asking others how they
think it compares to such competitors as the Sony DSC-P73, Nikon Coolpix
4200, Pentax Optio S4, cameras like that.

If I had the choice between it or the Canon A95, I'd definitely go with the
Canon; I love its excellent grip, it gets high marks for its image quality
(though it does struggle with blown highlights at times), has 5 megapixels
(more than enough for P&S uses), manual controls, and a swiveling LCD.

But I'd still like to know how the Kodak CX6445 compares to models like the
Sony DSC-P73, Nikon Coolpix 4200, Pentax Optio S4, et al. Especially at $120
shipped, brand-new.

LRH
"Hap Shaughnessy" <hap@lac-du-possum.ca> wrote in message
news:qs9h01tco0c7o5n95p2g1jtd9sk7ck7q29@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 10:37:09 GMT, "Ravi Kumar M via PhotoKB.com"
> <forum@PhotoKB.com> wrote:
>
>>please compare all aspects of both the cameras and advice on which to buy.
>>If a detailed comparision of all the features is done, it would be of
>>great
>>help to me. This is my first purchase of a digital camera.
>>Ravi
>
> BTW: the Kodak CX6445 doesn't exist.
>
> Go here: http://www.imaging-resource.com/ ... Compare Models
>
> & read the reviews here: http://www.dcviews.com/,
> http://www.dpreview.com/, http://www.steves-digicams.com/
>
> Hap
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 2:05:11 PM

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

Larry R Harrison Jr wrote:
> Actually, the Kodak CX6445 DOES exist. Here's a link at Kodak's website:
>
> http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/products/ekn0294...
>
> I'm interested in that model too because someone on the Internet is selling
> one new-in-box for $120 shipped. It's a 4-megapixel P&S with 4x zoom, uses
> SD cards. I've actually posted an "Opinions" thread asking others how they
> think it compares to such competitors as the Sony DSC-P73, Nikon Coolpix
> 4200, Pentax Optio S4, cameras like that.
>
> If I had the choice between it or the Canon A95, I'd definitely go with the
> Canon; I love its excellent grip, it gets high marks for its image quality
> (though it does struggle with blown highlights at times), has 5 megapixels
> (more than enough for P&S uses), manual controls, and a swiveling LCD.
>
> But I'd still like to know how the Kodak CX6445 compares to models like the
> Sony DSC-P73, Nikon Coolpix 4200, Pentax Optio S4, et al. Especially at $120
> shipped, brand-new.
>
> LRH
>

The Canon A95 costs at least twice what he mentions for the CS6445, and
is only 3x optical zoom. It is a camera for a different type of user.
One really shouldn't consider them comparable.
I haven't seen this camera for sale in the US, which might be a concern...


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 5:53:41 PM

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

dave32 wrote:
> The CX6445 seems to be a re-labled DX6440... They were specifically for
> sale through Dell and Sams Club.... I have called kodak on this and
> they couldn't find any differences.
>
As I understand it, the CX lacks the manual settings, and a few other
minor details. AFAIK, it has the same lens, LCD, and electronics.
Generally, the CX series is for users with less interest in manual
settings, and photographic flexibility.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 8:19:20 PM

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

Larry R Harrison Jr wrote:
> Actually, the Kodak CX6445 DOES exist. Here's a link at Kodak's website:
>
> http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/products/ekn0294...
>
> I'm interested in that model too because someone on the Internet is selling
> one new-in-box for $120 shipped. It's a 4-megapixel P&S with 4x zoom, uses
> SD cards. I've actually posted an "Opinions" thread asking others how they
> think it compares to such competitors as the Sony DSC-P73, Nikon Coolpix
> 4200, Pentax Optio S4, cameras like that.

The CX series uses the lower quality lenses. It also lacks the AF Assist
lamp, a critical feature that you should not compromise on.

I would avoid the Kodak CX series, and any camera without an AF Assist Lamp.

For the best recommendations, without all wading through a gazillion
reviews, see See "http://digitalcamerashortlist.com"

For sub-$200, go with the Nikon Coolpix 3200 or the Canon A85. The A95
is a little expensive at $289, but it's very good.

$120 is a fair price for the CX6445, it sells new for $200 at Sam's
Club, but it isn't a very good camera, and you'd be much happier with an
A85 for $190 (buydig.com). "Someone on the Internet" sounds a little risky.
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 8:19:21 PM

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

Ron Hunter mentioned that the A95 was "for a different audience." It may
help to clarify--past cameras I've owned or still own include the Nikon
Coolpix 5400, 5700, and Canon Digital Rebel. I also owned two 2-MP models
once, a Sony DSC-P50 and Nikon Coolpix 775. I currently own just the Digital
Rebel (and it's being fixed), and am looking at having a camera to backup
the D-SLR--not so much for photography exploits, but for everyday things.
You know, things like--shots of us acting goofy around the pool, trips we
take out of town (so we can have photographic records of our exploits), and
"everyday" usages.

Yet, I want it to be high-enough in quality that it won't be as much of a
step back as it was when we used the 2 megapixel models for those things.
That's why I've considered camera like this Kodak, plus the Canon Powershot
A80, Sony DSC-P100 (the 150 is great, with 7.2 megapixels, but costs more),
Canon Powershot A85, et al. I'd REALLY love something like the Canon
Powershot S-series--maybe as old as the S45--because they're more
"photographer's" type of cameras yet are compact & everyday. If I got one at
a low-enough price, it wouldn't bother me if my wife or I used it for
"everyday" things even with it being able to do more than that (more on that
next paragraph).

I didn't want to consider anything below 4 megapixels, mainly because my
wife tends to use the Digital Rebel (and did so with the Coolpix 5700) for
such everyday things because, in her words, "I can't blow it up if it turns
out to be something good." But I'd get nervous with her using $500 cameras
for pool-side pictures, and get irritated at her potentially wearing out a
$500 plus camera for silly goofy pictures which aren't "photography"
material. Yet, if I get something like 2MP or even 3MP, most likely she'll
still not feel assured of its quality when using it. I figure that at the 4
megapixel threshhold, this wouldn't be a problem.

But then, megapixels aren't everything.

Regardless--for photography exploits, I'd still use the Canon Digital Rebel,
and I'm working on getting another one for her to use for such things--or
maybe a Nikon Coolpix 8700, as she really loved using the 5700 we used to
own (I just shipped it off yesterday). But then again--I get uneasy with her
using a fancy camera like the 5700 for everyday things which don't merit
such a fancy camera. At a certain price point, or with a camera like the
5700, 8700, DR, being reserved for "deserving occasions," then whatever we
have left--even if it's something like a Powershot S45 or Powershot G3 (or
definitiely Powershot A-series or a Kodak et al)--she can use it all she
wants for whatever, without me being queasy. It's just simply a matter of if
a camera like the Kodak in this thread will be enough, and it sounds like it
would be. (Again, even something like a Canon A75 or Nikon 3200/3700 et al
wouldn't do the trick, knowing her.)

Also--the "someone on the Internet" is not fishy in this case. It is at a
website with a Buy/Sell section, much like Fred Miranda. I've actually
purchased there before and had good experiences.

LRH
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 8:19:21 PM

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

Steven M. Scharf wrote:
> Larry R Harrison Jr wrote:
>
>> Actually, the Kodak CX6445 DOES exist. Here's a link at Kodak's website:
>>
>> http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/products/ekn0294...
>>
>>
>> I'm interested in that model too because someone on the Internet is
>> selling one new-in-box for $120 shipped. It's a 4-megapixel P&S with
>> 4x zoom, uses SD cards. I've actually posted an "Opinions" thread
>> asking others how they think it compares to such competitors as the
>> Sony DSC-P73, Nikon Coolpix 4200, Pentax Optio S4, cameras like that.
>
>
> The CX series uses the lower quality lenses. It also lacks the AF Assist
> lamp, a critical feature that you should not compromise on.


>
> I would avoid the Kodak CX series, and any camera without an AF Assist
> Lamp.
>
I have never had a camera with an AF assist lamp, nor have I ever seen a
need for one. But then I don't often try to take pictures in the dark..
For me, it really isn't a factor.


> For the best recommendations, without all wading through a gazillion
> reviews, see See "http://digitalcamerashortlist.com"
>
> For sub-$200, go with the Nikon Coolpix 3200 or the Canon A85. The A95
> is a little expensive at $289, but it's very good.
>
> $120 is a fair price for the CX6445, it sells new for $200 at Sam's
> Club, but it isn't a very good camera, and you'd be much happier with an
> A85 for $190 (buydig.com). "Someone on the Internet" sounds a little risky.
>


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 8:19:22 PM

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

Larry R Harrison Jr wrote:
> Ron Hunter mentioned that the A95 was "for a different audience." It may
> help to clarify--past cameras I've owned or still own include the Nikon
> Coolpix 5400, 5700, and Canon Digital Rebel. I also owned two 2-MP models
> once, a Sony DSC-P50 and Nikon Coolpix 775. I currently own just the Digital
> Rebel (and it's being fixed), and am looking at having a camera to backup
> the D-SLR--not so much for photography exploits, but for everyday things.
> You know, things like--shots of us acting goofy around the pool, trips we
> take out of town (so we can have photographic records of our exploits), and
> "everyday" usages.
>
> Yet, I want it to be high-enough in quality that it won't be as much of a
> step back as it was when we used the 2 megapixel models for those things.
> That's why I've considered camera like this Kodak, plus the Canon Powershot
> A80, Sony DSC-P100 (the 150 is great, with 7.2 megapixels, but costs more),
> Canon Powershot A85, et al. I'd REALLY love something like the Canon
> Powershot S-series--maybe as old as the S45--because they're more
> "photographer's" type of cameras yet are compact & everyday. If I got one at
> a low-enough price, it wouldn't bother me if my wife or I used it for
> "everyday" things even with it being able to do more than that (more on that
> next paragraph).
>
> I didn't want to consider anything below 4 megapixels, mainly because my
> wife tends to use the Digital Rebel (and did so with the Coolpix 5700) for
> such everyday things because, in her words, "I can't blow it up if it turns
> out to be something good." But I'd get nervous with her using $500 cameras
> for pool-side pictures, and get irritated at her potentially wearing out a
> $500 plus camera for silly goofy pictures which aren't "photography"
> material. Yet, if I get something like 2MP or even 3MP, most likely she'll
> still not feel assured of its quality when using it. I figure that at the 4
> megapixel threshhold, this wouldn't be a problem.
>
> But then, megapixels aren't everything.
>
> Regardless--for photography exploits, I'd still use the Canon Digital Rebel,
> and I'm working on getting another one for her to use for such things--or
> maybe a Nikon Coolpix 8700, as she really loved using the 5700 we used to
> own (I just shipped it off yesterday). But then again--I get uneasy with her
> using a fancy camera like the 5700 for everyday things which don't merit
> such a fancy camera. At a certain price point, or with a camera like the
> 5700, 8700, DR, being reserved for "deserving occasions," then whatever we
> have left--even if it's something like a Powershot S45 or Powershot G3 (or
> definitiely Powershot A-series or a Kodak et al)--she can use it all she
> wants for whatever, without me being queasy. It's just simply a matter of if
> a camera like the Kodak in this thread will be enough, and it sounds like it
> would be. (Again, even something like a Canon A75 or Nikon 3200/3700 et al
> wouldn't do the trick, knowing her.)
>
> Also--the "someone on the Internet" is not fishy in this case. It is at a
> website with a Buy/Sell section, much like Fred Miranda. I've actually
> purchased there before and had good experiences.
>
> LRH
>
>
With that additional information, I would suggest spending a bit more
for something like the Kodak DX7440, or a Canon in the same price range
(about $400). I suspect you would be a lot happier.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 5:45:47 AM

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

Ravi Kumar M via PhotoKB.com wrote:
> please compare all aspects of both the cameras and advice on which to buy.
> If a detailed comparision of all the features is done, it would be of great
> help to me. This is my first purchase of a digital camera.
> Ravi
>
Hi,
What do you care about camera most? Me? the lens.
Now you decide. You're comparing apple vs. orange.
Tony
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 10:52:26 AM

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

I recently bought a V1 for $299, but after using it for 2 weeks I
returned it. The camera was great and did nicely with an external
flash... but the thing was freakin slow to turn on and as others have
mentioned, it has poor white balance in shady outdoor conditions. IMHO
a great second camera, but if you want just one camera... the V1 may
not be it.
!