Ease of use. Picture quality.

Quality. It doesn't seem to be made that well.

I was very pleased with the quality of the pictures. The panaramic photos I took are almost breathtaking. The camera has given me some problems though. On two occasions, the camera automatically rewound the film right in the middle of the roll. On a couple of other occasions, the camera just wouldn't take a picture. I tried it later and it worked just fine, so I don't know. I had a couple of those batteries which give you a readout of the battery strength and they were O.K. I like to leave the camera in my car and when I'm driving around, snap a picture once and a while when I see something interesting. Unfortunately, I can't rely on the camera to always work under these circumstances. If I put new film and batteries in it and use up the entire roll in a few days, it works fine. But if I leave the film in the camera for a month or two, I have problems.

Similar Products Used:

110 cameras

Small, takes regualar AA's, Easy to use, great for quick shots

No zoom, doesn't use any of the great aps features other than three print sizes

I like the price and funtionality of this camera. I actually like it better than my Samsung that I paid a lot more for. I just wish this camera allowed for some of the APS funtions other than just the 3print sizes. I really like the fact that it takes the picture when you push the button, unlike my Samsung that has to do some electronic voodoo before it will actually snap the shot. The flash doesn't always re-cyle all that quickly, but the battery is two regular AA's cheaper than those crazy photo one that don't seem to even last as long as the two AA's.

I recommend this as a good beater camera, take around for quick shots and don't feel bad if you lose it or it gets busted as it is cheap to replace.

Customer Service

None

Similar Products Used:

Samsung Implex 210i

cheap
simple to use
size
battery life
quality photos
4*6 print format is excellent

viewfinder not accurate
flash location is poor
expensive processing for a lower quality film (in comparison to a 35mm)
no zoom
no fill-flash

The "high defintion t.v." format is best picture size to use, since it uses the entire negative, the other two formats cut out a sizeable amount of the image. I find the "classic" format useless. I've read so mush about the APS's poor film quality, but, after 10+ rolls of film, I have no complaints. I suggest you use Kodak film and Kodak processing (although they are expensive). I have had a terrible experience with Fugi film/processing, the photos were faded and dull, even after i had them reprocessed and darkened. With Kodak film/processing, i have not had that problem. Just stay within the limitations of the flash. Try "hitting" the subject a few times with the red eye reduction beam (if possible) to ensure red eye removal.

Customer Service

never tried, since i misplaced the receipt (it broke in less than a year, but is was due to my neglect)

Similar Products Used:

Canon Sure Shot
b/w manual SLR
other point and shoot 35mm cameras

Very inexpensive,
easy to use,
compact

Pictures were not bright and colorful.

This is an OK product for a beginner or for occasional picture taking, but if you want good quality, choose a different camera.

Similar Products Used:

Kodak 2100

It is an easy to use. It has auto flash, auto focus, it has 3 different picture formats.

I have had no problems with this camera.

An overall good beginner camera.

Customer Service

Haven't needed customer service since I had no problems.

Similar Products Used:

I have not tried any other cameras of this type.

•It was cheap
•You can chose betwee three photo shapes

•It broke twice from average everyday use

•Not as good quality as I expected from Kodak

Customer Service

•OK

Similar Products Used:

•None

It was cheap.

Viewfinder does not accurately represent the distance and area of actual picture.

Button too hard to push (a pet peeve of mine).

I've taken a college photography course 7 years ago, and taken my time with setting up shots, but I'm no half-expert. I do, however, care a lot about the end-product in photography, and have come to expect a camera as being capable.

I'm on a college budget now, and needed a point and shoot camera to document an outdoor event. I thought that, with the quality "glass lens" Kodak advertises, along with the new film format, I should be getting pretty good pics from this simple camera.

Granted, some will say "What do you expect from a less than $40 camera?", but to that I answer; A whole lot more in today's age, with today's supposedly capable films.

After developing, I was a little disappointed with the actual spatial distance of the pics (I'm not sure what the actual word(s) is/are for this) compared to what the viewfinder seemd to indicate I would get.

I have to admit I took the pics to Wal Mart 1 hour, and promptly returned them. The matte finish, I felt, was merely hiding the fact that they either have a poor process or use poor paper. Beautiful fall scenery was drudgery on paper.
The pics are currently out getting re-done (but the film is already develpoed Wal Mart style - I hope their process didn't permanently give me a poor set of photos) in a glossy format. I'm basing this review on the original matte finish though. (I used Fuji 400, Kodak 200 and Kodak 400 rolls)

Overall I would rate this camera, for anyone who cared about their pics at all, as a very poor buy. It is my first experience with the new film style, and I'm not impressed. Hopefully the film is good, and it was merely the poor camera that gave me poor pics.

I also didn't like the timing of the shutter when compared to the activation of the button. The button is also a little hard to push, which may account for blurry pics if you aren't careful to hold the camera steady.

So no comment as of yet on the film, but avoid the camera.

Customer Service

n/a

Similar Products Used:

Other SLR"s w/ 35mm.