2.1m is plenty of res.  My sony shoots at 1.3 and that is sufficient.  good price, I paid three fifty for mine

I'd be interested in finding out too.  This past weekend I was looking at that camera also.  Anyone???

fuatos

i have the dc3400 zoom, the quality is great, its easy to use & set up, and it downloads the pics fast as hell with the usb plug.
pat

Get a Canon S10 for the same amount of $$.  Beachcamera is selling it for 312 at this time.

It is a 2.11 megapixel and very compact.

Would you trust a Kodak over a Canon?

Have a Nikon 990 with 3.34 mega pixels. This is just one step short of a pro camera.  Use it to pick up the fine details on computer boards (it will show clearly the part number on a resister if I do my job. With the lenses that are available for it you can do anything that a professional photographer can do with a 35mm.

This may be what I have been waiting for [:)] I have so far refused to buy a Dig. Cam. because of the lens issue. A camera with changable lenses, is what I have been waiting for.

I've used the kodaks before and found that they are good cameras (slow when downloading to pc though).  Other cameras have a few more bells and whistles but for the price, its still a good bargain.

I have the older DC215, it has never missed a beat.  Downloading pics from any camera (unless using a USB connection) is dependent upon battery strength, stronger the batteries the faster the download.

Something I've found is that when the camera has gotten all it can out of the batteries you can pull 'em out and test them and they'll still have a little under a half charge left.  I use the batteries in other stuff for a short while before discarding.  Because the cameras do eat batteries, when on sale, Rayovac Maximums & Walgreens Alkaline (I think Energizer makes the Walgreens batteries) are a good value.  They hold up right along w/ Duracell & Energizer.

Proof that film is going the way of the 8-track tape (for you new guys, that's a type of tape before CD's and cassetts were invented [:)] ) and the buggy whip.

The average 35mm photo is about 6 m.pixels.  I'm sure they'll have those out in about a year.

The Kodak digital cameras are very good... I have the DC290 and I am very happy with it.
[img]http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=926068&a=6762421&p=49230905&Sequence=0&res[/img]
If using the serial port on your computer to DL your images, it does take a while. USB is the way to go, but I have noticed that the images are slightly smaller if you try to dump all the files into your 'puter at once. I DL them one at a time, and it only takes 2 seconds to download an image. The images are typically 17x24 inches, and reducing them to print or link to a web page improves the appearance even further. I use an AC adaptor while DL'ing files, and I have a couple sets of rechargeable batteries, as the camera does tend to eat them up. The power zoom uses a lot of power, as does the flash and the color LCD viewer.
Check out the Kodak website...

[url]http://www.kodak.com/US/en/digital/promos/dc290/index.shtml[/url]

FITTER out