Hi,

I was wondering how you all feel about the Kodak DC290? It seems like a good camera. I have been torn between buying that or the Nikon Coolpix 990, although I realise that the Nikon is superior. Any strengths / weaknesses about the Kodak and the Nikon would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

-- Kirsten (KBathory@aol.com), June 24, 2000

Answers

The Nikon 990 is the better camera bay far. The Kodak 290 interpolates the image to give you a bigger image without really giving you any more detail...that's a cheap shot at consumers.

While the 990 is better, I think that you might even be happier with the Coolpix 950 now that it has been discounted. I would venture to say that my 950 is less "noisy" than mny 990. I also use a Nikon D1 as my regular working camera.

Please don't feel that I am biased to Nikon (I own a $18,000 Kodak DCS460 pro SLR cam too), but I've tried almost all the digital cameras for consumers, saving my samples in my laptop for examination. The Kodak line is: 1) slow response to shots 2) eats batteries as does the Nikon 990 3) yields a noisier image and lesser quality than the Cano Powershot or Nikon Coolpix lines.

Try some sample shots (bring a compact flash card and download the resulting images at home, if you can). Better yet, try the compare-o- meter or whatever it's called here on Imaging Resource.

An alternative to teh 950 or 990 or the Kodak? I would suggest a Canon Powershot S10 at about $499 now. Buy the charger and Nimh battery pack for another $90. Great camera which I use on buisness trips after losing my Powershot A50. Nice pocketable size. Good luck!

-- Cyrus H (cyrus@nospam.com), June 26, 2000.

Check out the comparison pictures on this site for your answer. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I prefer the color saturation that the Kodak produces. My brother-in-law has a 990 and I like my DC280 pictures better. We recently had the chance to shoot (photograph for you literal types) a manatee that came to feed at his dock, he with his 990 and me with the 280. We loaded the results from both our C-Flash cards on his PC and compared results. Mine had more contrast, better saturation and truer colors. He likes his shots better and feels the price of his Nikon was worth it. It's hard to have someone come on here and help guide you, let your owns tastes be your guide. Gook luck.

-- Steve Steinberg (ssteinb1@tampabay.rr.com), June 27, 2000.

I was also on the fence about what camera to choose. ( coolpix or kodak). Then I saw my brothers images from his Kodak 280, and the photo examples of a rose comparing 8 other cameras with the 280.Clearly the 280 stood out. And think about it. Aren't most of our disappointments with our 35mm about color saturation ? They were for me. I always remembered the sky being bluer or the forest greener. The end product freqently looking bla, and not at all what I remembered seeing through my lens. When I defined what was important, the choice was easy. I then decided to upgrade right away and bought the Kodak 290.

Good Luck!

-- Mary (muri98@primary.net), July 03, 2000.