Good Basic Solid 2 MP Camera at a good price
Written: Sep 08 '04 (Updated Sep 22 '04)
|
Product Rating:
|
|
| Ease of Use: |
 |
|
| Durability: |
 |
|
| Battery Life: |
 |
|
| Photo Quality: |
|
|
| Shutter Lag |
|
|
|
Pros: Good 2MP pic for 4x6 or 5X7, Cheap, Lot of features, Solid feel
Cons: limitations of enlargements, battery usage, can't print pic from Kodak Picture Maker
The Bottom Line: Excellent for the price I paid. A solid feel with lots of feature. Great for everyday 4x6 pictures
|
|
|
| namabeer's Full Review: Hewlett Packard Photosmart 635 Digital Camera |
Just got a great deal from Staples paying only $99 Cdn ($70 US) for this little camera.
It has tons of features including a 3x optical lense (next to impossible to find in a camera costing only $100 Cdn). The only thing I wish it had as a video out so you can watch things thru a TV. You can but it means paying $$$ for a docking station. Other cameras will have an video output with a RCA wire. But at this price I shouldn't complain. This camera will take good 4x6 photos with pretty good accuracy and exposure. A little slow to take multiple pictures but remember how much I paid!!!
Very easy to manouvre with button and pretty easy to understand how to use if you know things about a regular camera.
Batteries get chewed up fast as every time you turn the camera on the lens has to come out and this draws lots of batteries. Using the zoom and LCD display also kills the battery. Try taking photos thru the viewfinder if you are running low on battery.
The built in internal 16MB memory can hold 12 highest resolution pictures which is not a lot so you will definitely need to grab a Scan Disk for $50-$80. Don't even bother using the low quality setting as the pic is definitely not to par with photo quality.
The movie feature is totally useless but maybe fun to have. The quality is unwatchable if transfered to a TV or even computer screen. It does NOT replace a camcorder as the picture is very bad. Acceptable on the 1.5 in screen provide but not for anything else.
Good software with camera. You can make VCD slide shows with music onto a cd with your burner. Easy but time consumming.
Negative: Big compatibility issue with this camera and developing pic at a Kiosk with Kodak Picture Maker. The maker can't read HP JPEG files made from this camera. So this is sort of useless if you want to do it yourself. The problem is the Kodak maker seems to be the only one out there in stores for the do it yourselfers. This makes developing pic a big pain in the but. One way to get around this is to Resave each photo as a JPEG in a diff program like Photo Editor or Photo Shop. This means opening each pict individually. PAIN and time consuming. Much faster if you could just insert your card at the Kiosk and press print!!!!! Thinking of taking the camera back. Apparently I contacted HP & Kodak and they are aware of the incompatiblity of it and are trying to resolve it. Kodak says any machines using 4.0 software will work.HP says they are working on a Firmware change in the camera. But when with this be? In 2 years this camera is really obsolete. Can't wait!!! Does this mean all HP cameras have problems developing pic? I dont' hear any complaints on the net. If you know, please let me know. I can't be the only one with the problem.
MEGAPIXALS/RESOLUTION:
There's a lot of hipe over how many mega pixels. More the better. But 2 things you must seriously consider before spending your hard earned money.
1. How often do you blow up a picture beyond 5x7 or 4x6. Maybe once in my lifetime and I'm an avid photographer. So if 2MP is all you need to get photo quality prints, why do most people need more. Sort of like why do you need a 300 horsepower car when you commute in the city and go 60km/hr!!!
2. How good is your computer. I have an older version. I could never justify a better camera as my computer just couldn't handle it.
3. Most people take pictures at 2-3 MP even if they have 4-5MP cameras. So what is the point??? Status symbol? Hmmm
These three above reasons make me more than satified with a 2.1 MP camera.
I'm still an avid user of 35mm with my SLR. When you think of it, processing is so much cheaper with 35mm. It cost $4 for 24 exposure and if you double the prints it's an extra $1-2. You can't get that price when developing digital prints. Maybe in the future but not now.So when people say you save so much with digital -to a certain extent not true. Remember you have to invest in rechargeables (or go thru 2 AAs alkaline every hour) and a Scan disk which then could double the price you invested!.
In summary this camera is great for my purposes and should be for most people. I know it sounds obsolete compared to everything on the market now with 3.2, 4.0 5.0 and 6.0 MP but given the price and my needs, I think it's a great toy.
I don't think I'll fully defect until the future when i find the need to enlarge my photos and when i reinvest in a new faster computer.
If you have questions or comments please contact me
namabeer@hotmail.com
Recommended:
Yes
Amount Paid (US$): 70
This Camera is a Good Choice if You Want Something... Easy Enough for Anyone to Use
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
namabeer
|
|
Member: Dave
Reviews written: 66
Trusted by: 3 members
|
|
|
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.