|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
Totally agree (Reply to this comment)
by witchyangel
My sister got one and since I am the computer geek I was left to install it and test it for her. We did like you and took pic's of the cat which you couldn't make out after the pic was uploaded. We took it back and got a Kodak which is so much better and lets us take pic's while driving down the road at 35mph.
|
Nov 08 '01
11:03 am PST
|
|
Good reading, but could use a little more detail. (Reply to this comment)
by grimjack2
Well, this is actually a pretty good review that gets it point across. However, I'm curious as to what are the resolution options for the pictures? Also, does it use any type of removable memory? If it does, I wouldn't mind not being able to connect to Win2000 directly.
|
Oct 16 '01
1:12 pm PDT
|
|
I got a pop up not too long ago (Reply to this comment)
by jo.com
it almost got me; I think it was $20 or $40.It was cheap whatever the brand which I can't remember. I figured it was too good to be true but for $14 I think I would have tried also. jo
|
Sep 09 '01
11:59 am PDT
|
|
Re: Some+comments (Reply to this comment)
by basilisk4
Dave,
It seems like you were looking for a little bit too much out of this review. I felt that I addressed most of the points you bring up, especially what "I expected" -- a cheap camera. I figured that any further expectation than that, i.e., that it would take pictures that were identifiable as the object of which I took the picture. I thought that was pretty obvious.
Beyond that, I really think that there wasn't much else to be said. It's hard to say as much about a feature-barren, $14 digital camera as a $500 one. The raw material is just not there. While I could have included more specs, it has long been my policy that anyone can find specifications -- it takes more than that to make a good review.
Thanks for your comments,
Marty/basilisk4
|
Sep 08 '01
11:24 am PDT
|
|
Some comments (Reply to this comment)
by sweeper,  in Electronics
To explain my less-than-highest rating.
basilisk4,
While I'm sure expectations of a $14 camera should be low, your title suggests what you should have addressed in the body of your post.
That is, what WERE you looking for and what were your expectations when you bought the camera? There is a market for extremely affordable digital cameras and, apparently, you were expecting the performance of a higher end and higher priced camera.
You denounce the plastic construction when, in fact, even professional level cameras are built with plastic. And I think your criticism at the low control button count is meant to be funny.
I'm also wondering if the packaging in which the camera came indicated its compatibility with Windows 2000. If so, you truly deserve a refund. If not, I'm wondering what made you think it was compatible.
Would have liked to have read about real specs. Pixel count, lines of resolution, size, weight, optical element construction, and viewfinder type are attributes prospective buyers are considering. What about accesories and the manual?
If you were to edit this to address some of these issues, I'd be happy to adjust my rating.
Dave
|
Sep 08 '01
11:01 am PDT
|
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.