Kodak C813--a strict no no---don’t ever buy. We had a Nikon L12...still regret having lost it.. Then I started lukin 4 a cheap, easy to use, point and shoot camera.
A hot pursuit followed and The hunt ended at Kodak C 813 as for seemingly simple yet efficient features and cheaper price tag-- ( Rs. 5300 inclusive all taxes--bill n 1-yr warranty, a 2GB SD card, camera pouch, 4-battery NiMh charger with 2 free batteries -- ex-dealer shop in Naza, Lalbagh, Lucknow on Mar 5, 2009)
The dealer touted the model as quality at a cheap price value for money...and it was not really available anywhere else 4 such a low price tag (even on d various sites which source their stuff from grey market).....I bought it n deeply regret it now.
One of d greatest mistakes ever.
*WHAT A WASTE....IT PROVED OUT TO BE UTTER WASTE OF MONEY
The picture quality sucks-- d most important thing to luk for in a cam. If a cam fails on this account den it is a complete failure.God knows how it luks gud wen u shoot at d dealer’s place...n wen u r on ur own, u c d thing in its true colors. I’ll try to upload some sample shots taken in all sorts of lighting- bright or low. The focussing mechanism is in shambles....there is no LED to assist focussing.
RESULT: Poor focussing which sometimes does not focus even in bright light-- a very easy task for any cam. Consequently-- extremely POOR pic quality, zero sharpness with grainy, blur pix
No TV o/p of pictures and video (as it was in my Nikon) , no sound playback during video playback , no face detection, no led focus, small display- quality is OK , very poor ISO & image stabilization. Its too bulky and ’fat body’. Difficult to grip as well. Lighting correction (photo fix) is average. Fast interface wen connected to PC, better image data compression to give lower filesize ( at an avg. its around 1.5 MB for JPEG images with wide or narrow difference in color patterns; considering its 8 Megs. --atleast one gud job by Kodak product developers.)
Better white balance dan my L12 so pics don’t look yellowish in low light or low light with Flash..Also d battery life (wid 2300 MAh NiMh batteries) is good-- more than 150 shots with flash. Many shooting modes provided--which fare average once again..
I admit that iIm not a camera expert but a simple cam like dis should facilitate even amateurs to bring out quality shots....dat wud b d true beauty of a camera...something that can earn it appreciation--- THIS CAM FAILS MISERABLY ON EVERY FRONT.
I WONT EVER SUGGEST A KODAK CAM TO ANYONE AS KODAK DIGICAMS HAVE HAD A LONG, PERSISTENT BAD NAME. THE RECENT MARKETING CAMPAIGNS WID D SASSY KATRINA KAIF MIGHT BE AN ATTEMPT TO ADD GLAMOUR, GLITZ TO D PRODUCT LINE BUT D QUALITY NEEDS TO BE IMPROVISED A LOT...I also have a Kodak Kroma film-based camera bought in Mar 2002. Its too gud in all respects. But the kodak digital lineup is an utter waste of money.
Better go for any Canon powershot or better still, IXUS series.With experience I have discovered them as the best digicams on earth ( below any of D-SLRs)
And if u r a photography enthusiast, dont even think of anything else dan a DSLR....start wid Nikon D40 (around Rs. 17k --tad costly but u’ll luv it 4 d pictures) or Canon EOS 400D/ digital rebet xTi.
Dont ever but this stuff...atleast get a simple Nikon L16, L18.