FlyBoeing From United States of America, joined May 2000, 866 posts, RR: 2 Posted (12 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 748 times:
I'm thinking about the Kodak DX3900. I have a soft spot for the Kodak line, but my DX3600 was stolen a week ago *cocking handgun* :-(. I took a damn lot of pictures with the 3600. In all likelihood, the 3900 will take better still photos but has no video mode. I'm especially interested in its ability to change the settings.
But I only used the video mode twice on the 3600.
Should I pay $70-100 more for a digital camera that takes video? It doesn't seem like a good feature - the resolution is quite poor for most cameras - and Kodak cameras do have their reputation for high quality still photography.
Still, I'm wondering whether losing those moments when video would be appropriate is worth $70-100. I might lose them anyway since video takes up a lot of space on my HD for negligible quality.
EGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 34
Reply 1, posted (12 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 729 times:
Well, If you like Kodak (which I don't, but its your opinion), then I suggest you go for the DX4900. Its basically the same as the 3900 but with more resolution. Its not up to the standards of Sony or any of the leading brands of cameras, but they are quite cheap (for the amount of functions), Video playback isn't really worth it, AFAIK, I don't even bother with it, as its too jerky for meh (only records at 6-12fps, I think).
If you are going to buy another Kodak, you might as well get as much resolution as you can, bigger picture means you can resize it and get better quality, and also bigger prints.