Cnet: Kodak’s C653 is clunky, slow and not worth low price
Another strike for Kodak, one of the lowest end models it offers, the EasyShare C653 was reviewed by Cnet and no one was impressed by it, not even the bystanders that were asked their opinion of the camera.
The C653 is one of Kodak’s lowest end models offering 6 megapixels of resolution, a 2.4″ LCD and anti-blur technology that isn’t worth the print in the spec sheet. First of all, Cnet was not impressed with the design of the camera which measures 1.4 inches thick and weighs 6.9 ounces with batteries and a SD card. The editor noted, “Even the cheapest budget cameras today can be built small and light, making the C653’s hirsute form feel downright anachronistic.”
In fact the design was so archaic, someone asked if it was circa 2000/2001. There is a 3x optical zoom in the 36mm to 108mm range which is standard on almost all cameras, it offers 20 different scene modes and the ability to adjust ISO settings.
Both still image capture and movie mode were lacking. The camera took an agonizing 3 seconds to power up and capture it’s first image, after that it could fire every 1.7 seconds, which is slow. Shutter lag ranged between 0.5 seconds and 1.4 seconds so it performs like a camera from 2001 would have. Movie mode captured 640 x 480 video at a very lagging 10 frames per second which resulted in blurred distorted images, something the camera excels at.
It was also noted in the review that the camera had a very irritating quirk which was that you could press the shutter button immediately, the camera would take the picture but without focusing. While other cameras were noted to do that, the option could be turned off which the C635 does not have.
To sum up the rest of the review the C635 suffers from fringing, noisy images starting at ISO 200 and gets progressively worse with its maximum of ISO1250 being unusable producing nothing but noisy, static-ridden, unrecognizable images. Will Greenwald of Cnet concludes with this comment, “Five years ago, this 6-megapixel shooter might have barely passed muster, but today it’s simply unacceptable.” He also notes that even at its $130 price tag, it’s not worth it.
You are best advised to look elsewhere.
Related Posts:
