Results tagged “Kodak”

Junk Cameras One

DSCI0525.JPGI have posted on this blog early on about the Kodak digital cameras I had collected and I showed them off and told you about what they could do and the quality of how they took photos. You see, I wanted a digital camera ever since they started hitting the market, but I could never afford any. When I got a Cintar camera as a gift for Christmas back in 2002, I was in business. Yeah, I had to sharpen each pic individually and yes, the memory for those cams was stupid expensive (to me) but I used it as much as I could. Take a pic, wait 45 seconds, take another pic. I finally had a little more money when I bought a 6.1m Kodak in 2006. It was  light years from what I'd been using yet towards the bottom of state of the art. Maybe 2004 or so all the camera makers started getting into a "we have more mega pixels" race and went to about 16 MPX before Americans switched over to smart phones and away from point and shoot consumer cameras. 

DSCI0526.JPGI was fine with my Kodak until it started messing up. When I couldn't take it any more, I bought a new Nikon camera that was great. A year later, it failed because it was a piece of dung. (Just past the warranty. Figures.) I bought a new Fuji cam. Boomer started having the same problem with his Kodak (the same as mine) he went to Fleabay, bought several of our model and we had fixed Kodaks for about $6 each.  A short time later, I was in the thrift shop near his house and I found a crate loaded with cameras for two-three bucks each. I bought. I had gone down the rabbit hole. I started looking for a camera that was better than what I had and took better pics, or a cam that cost 2-300 bucks when new, yet was less than $10. I got a lot of goodies, or at least pretty goodies. I've also got a lot of cheeseburgers. Here is my box of cheese.

100_3528.JPGFuji Finepix 1.3 4"AA" Batteries

Here was the first one. A 1.3 Fuji Camera that takes 4 "AA" batteries. It's as base of a point and shoot cam as you can get. I wish I could say I tested this camera when I got it. However, it took a certain type of media and didn't have memory in it. Lots of cams that were this type of media didn't have memory or came with a "basic" chip memory.

100_3529.JPGIt does look a little like a retro camera. Yes I have a link for it. A great camera review site, usually reviewed all the cheese. Remember, at one time, these were not cheese.

100_3535.JPGFuji 1400 1.3 4"AA" Batteries

Here was the second cam I bought the same day from the same store. Same thing, 4 "AA" batteries, but this one had a lens that popped out. When you closed the door, it retreated. Fuji went with this design for their cheaper cameras with "zoom" for a few years. Here's the cam review site on this one:

100_3536.JPGNothing too exciting here. The LED displays on the back of these cams was pretty good for when they were minted. However, the ate batteries. So one of the best things about older digital cameras was, they had a view finder. Day or night, you got an approximate look at what you were taking a picture of. Approximate. Yeah. But, at least they were there. If you can't see what you are shooting, you guess that it it's about right.  The reason there are no "demo" pics that I took is....

100_3539.JPGSmart Media.  Yep. Heard of it?  Back when "removable media" on a computer was a 1.44 Meg floppy drive, this was invented and floated as being the replacement for floppies. It was thin, it held at least two floppies worth of data, and it was tiny. It grew by doubles for a few more times until it stopped at a whopping 128 Meg of storage. Lots of manufacturers adopted the technology like sewing machine makers and musical keyboard makers. Too bad the camera industry was growing so fast by taking better and bigger pics, at cheaper prices.  Also, more compact media that held MUCH more data came around. SD and XD memory took over. I think Fuji went xD and then joined just about everyone else with SD.  Search for Smart Media and get the full story about why they died. I didn't have a Smart Media card until about 6 months after when I bought my third cam that used the media. I really think these Fujis took good pictures. The review site has good demos. 

100_3540.JPGMinolta Dimage E 201 2.3  4"AA" Battery Compact Flash

Here's the link for it.  Yes, I know, I've really been breaking the rule of this blog. However, I search for every camera I get, so I already have the links. This was the last of the three that I bought on the same day from the same store. This was also a 4 battery affair, but it takes Compact Flash media. Again, I couldn't test it right away as I didn't have any CF chips with me. I did think there was a little more gusto to this cam than the Fuji cams. Minolta was an old line camera maker right? This had to have a good lens right? This had to be a better cam right?

100_3541.JPGWow! It has TWO displays? Something that older digital cameras have is these little LCD windows that provide a lot of info at a glance. Why? Because using the display to see how many pictures you've taken made those 4 AA batteries get really tired really fast. This showed what quality and what range the lens was as well as the number of shots left. Nifty.

100_3542.JPGMost of the controls were on top anyway. This has a dimmer display than the Fujis had, and likely took the juice from the batteries even more. Ahhh, but the viewfinder was there. Plus, this thing weighs a LOT compared with the Fujis. Built like tanks were these cameras.  Ahhh, but the pictures....

PICT0041.JPGThis is why I used to re-process all of my photos on my first cam. A little sharpening is all this needs. Funny, but  lots of "other" cheaper cameras even with less MPX than this one delivered sharp photos without processing needed. When I did finally see what the above Fujis could do, they did better.

PICT0028.JPGNow it was a bit cloudy on this day, but one of the other problems of older digital cameras is the black tones of the picture. If you look past the blur, you'll see they are dark and pasty. My old 2.3 Cintar would take the same way. My guess is it was the CCD pickup used to record the picture. I'm sure not every manufacturer designed their cameras from the ground up. Some may have had better lenses as I'd believe this Minolta did, but the inner workings... My Cintar said it uses a "Sony" CCD. I'm betting Minolta used something similar as they never were a big competitor in the digital camera world.  So...these cams got retired, but I started going to thrift stores and buying any camera that was...well...a camera. When I continue this series, you'll see some of the others in the box at the top, and then I'll round it up by featuring the ultimate cheese... Vivicheese.  

ARF! -Ric


100_3670.JPGI have a few board games which at one time got played, or not, otherwise, they went into my closet. I used to want some of these games in hopes that my family would have a game night. Nope. I even had a game company and I'd paper over original games and make my own cards. I was a game TYKE-ooon. These are the few that didn't get thrown away. I kept them in a Curtis Mathes 20" television box and they were sitting in my basement. Trouble was, I didn't notice the bit of water that was wicking off the floor. Humid in the summer. When I went to get something from the box, surprise! Mildew... Thankfully only slight and only the games that were at the bottom. I went out and bought a plastic box and stuffed them all in there. I do have a friend that likes games a lot, but I don't. I can't give these away.... someday... nahhh. Lets play poker.

100_3672.JPGThis is the bitchin edition (TM) of the game for spelling lovers. I never had a scrabble game as I was growing up. I preferred the simple games or flashy games or electronic games or video games. This is SCRABBLE! It's a DELUXE EDITION. In the great film "Roger And Me", they showed a national Scrabble convention at the downtown Flint hotel. They used these boards which swivel so that every player can see the front view of the board. Kind of makes traditional Scrabble boards seem silly. Plus, they each have a place on the board where you place the tiles, in case there is a hurricane or earthquake. Really, Roger and Me is the only reason why I bought this version.

100_3673.JPGI can't even quote anything funny about this game. Triple word score for "Dey"? Hahahahaha. Really, I never played this version. I did play the regular Scrabble at my friend's house that loves games. He keeps the tiles in a Crown Royal bag. We might have played 1/2 or 3/4 of a game, or he beat me and then the poker chips came out and pizza was ordered. Can you tell I really don't like the game much? However, when this deluxe edition was at a thrift store in nearly mint condition, why not buy it? One less fizzy pop drink or 2M Kodak camera...

100_3674.JPGYep. I knew this would be useful. Lookit that. Of course, JUNK BLOG shares no letters so I couldn't make it cross over. Hell, you get the idea. Truth be told, I was actually a fan of the Scrabble game show with the "Two and Two" guy. I think it was on before or after The Price Is Right so when I was a kid and had the summer to waste away watching television, it was what I watched. Then, after graduation, I watched it almost every day. I even remember when it came back in a revival. "We were away, and we're back now" was what I remember ol' Chuckles said in the first show of the revival. I always loved when they picked a letter and it made a noise while it scanned across the screen and the "stoppers" had a nasty moaning buzzer noise. Just look on Wiki for more info.  I just did and found out something I didn't know!  Howard Stern just did a tribute to Charlie Tuna on his Monday show. It seems that Charlie was a famous deejay that recently passed away. Turns out that he was also the announcer for most of the game show version of Scrabble.  A Koo-Inky-Dink that towards the end of this junk blog post, I looked up the Scabble game show on Wiki and found out this fact? Honest INJUN. Now it can be told.  What's the best tuna? NO. I won't go there.


100_2891.JPGThis was amazing tech for me in the mid 90's. A CB radio that I could carry in my hand that was crystal clear when talking to peeps? I could use it inside buildings without any interference? If someone was 5 car lengths behind, they could still hear me without an external antenna? What kind of mystery machine (You Can Do) magic is this? The FRS radio! (Family Radio Service)

100_2892.JPGMotorola was pretty much the go-too radio when these first came out. Although Radio Shack helped FRS come along. When I went to fan conventions,  these could broadcast in a hotel and you could hear someone 10 floors up with perfect clarity. HOLY S**T! We're standing on the F**King MOON! Plus, unlike CB's in the 70's, you didn't need a federal license to own one of these magic Star Trek communicators. Of course, I think the use of foul language or the picking up of lot lizards for a "cuppa coffee" was frowned upon.

100_2893.JPGAfter seeing how good these could be, I broke out $40 at a K-Mart somewhere on the way home from Memphis, Tenn. (Maybe in Nashville.) It took 3 AA batteries. Damn, why not 4? Please? 6V rather than 4.5V? Can anybody hear me? Oh yeah, now they are all lithium and recharged by plugging it into your computer. Of course, try and replace those...

100_2894.JPGCertainly rides too and from conventions became a better amusement when you could constantly chatter with the other vehicles with the help of these. Tell your friends you are stopping for a squirt, or getting some eats, or doing both. (Wash hands after use.) This Motorola was a pretty damn good radio but trouble started after I dropped it. Then the antenna became sort of loose. Ahh, but when the on/off knob started making noise and then crapped out every now and then, it was time to replace it.

100_2895.JPG3 AA batteries. (grumble) See above. You see, it was about three years when we really got a lot of use out of these at conventions. I'd wake in the morning and turn it on and have fun with the 14 other people that were on the same channel. Being a broadcaster at heart, it was always fun to fart or burp or fake *censored* for the unexpecting listeners. They seemed to be used for "Where you at? We're going for food".  Sometimes the were used to announce on every channel "Star Trek Duckman will be showing for the 47th time in the movie room in 5 minutes..."

100_2896.JPGPrices on these radios were dropping quite a bit so when my Motorola started to spew, I spent $30 for a pair of "Bell South" FRS. 2 radios cheaper than the one radio I had bought a few years previous. Amazing.  This way, if you didn't have your own FRS for our trek, I could loan you one.

100_2898.JPGLook! It's Mr. Fat Hand. Wave hello Mr. Fat Hand! These worked really well but lacked the overall quality of the Motorola. Yeah, I'm sure when they design any hand held device, they suppose that the user will always have a firm grip on the device and NEVER drop it. Geeze, only now have some cell phones started to become more rugged. If you want a laptop that can withstand Armageddon, you'll pay $3000 for the Panasonic Toughbook. If you want a cam that goes underwater, you'll pay $300-500 for it. Cell phone companies have made the glass front of their cell phones so much better, but I can't tell you how many I've seen with their smart phones with a cracked screen. Hell, I even broke the screen on my first Kodak digicam and in 2006, it was still pretty expensive to replace the screen, so I bought the same model.  So, I can't fault Motorola for my first FRS going POO POO after a little BOO BOO.

100_2902.JPGFOUR "AAA" batteries. At least it was a little better, but still, AAA batteries don't have much life... I did like the ease of popping off the belt clip. On the Motorola, you needed to take off the belt clip to change the batteries. It was a pain to take off. Motorola designs did that well. You wore it on your waist and it didn't come off. These Bell units has a little push button latch to take off the battery cover, and you didn't need to take it off to change the batteries. (Likely because you had too change the AAA batteries three times as much.) Plus, the antenna was more sturdy and there was no rotary switch to turn these on/off and adjust the volume. Push button bay-bee.

100_2901.JPGJust three or four years later after FRS made a huge splash in the convention world, everybody got cell phones. That was that. It seemed overnight, nobody was using these anymore. Of course, I'm a cheapdog. I got a cell phone, but it's prepaid and plays Tetris. Still have it. Still use it. No smart phone nonsense for me. One of these FRS radios got dropped and started acting "funny" so I now have 1 1/2 FRS radios that I never use, but I did use them once in the last five years. Boomer's car blew an alternator, so we got him a new battery and we limped his car home from Cleveland to Pitt. Other than that? Junk.  A brief piece of history that faded. Sure they have radios now with more channels and some that can get five miles... Junk. Don't leave a message on my cell, I forgot the password and they wouldn't reset it.

Arf! -Ricochet

IMGP0002.JPGI mean...really? So early in the junk blog? Are you putting us on? Are you just buying junk to post on this blog? Really? I mean? REALLY?

IMGP0006.JPGIt's the exact damn POS camera that you said was a POS and soundly said it was a POS because it is a POS!! Why the F**K would you buy another? HP cameras are not known for their quality but they are at least BETTER THAN THE 'V" CAMERAS! But I mean, OH NO THEO, NOT ANOTHER HP!!!

IMGP0012.JPGNo, it's just a slight bit different. It's a HP Photosmart 433. That's 2 numbers less than the 435 POS. Other than that, oh wait, this one only has a useless 3X digital zoom. Oh yeah, it didn't come with a strap or a marketing label. Plus, it comes in WHITE FACE rather than dual tone silver.  WTF WERE YOU THINKING? It doesn't say KODAK. We know you have a *CENSORED* for those KODAKS. Why the hell get another POS HP?

IMGP0011.JPGIt's the SAME POS I tell you! What, did they somehow improve on it in two digits? It's got the same picture taking functions including the super annoying "touch the button and it snaps" and no macro. It's got the SD card and 2AA batteries. Hmmm, it's a slight bit different though. Well, the proof is in the pictures I guess...

IM000376.JPGHmmmmmmm. Muh. Mmmmmmmm.  Maybe the fact that this one did not have the batteries leak inside might have helped it take the doggie pic a bit better. What about the macro Browns pad that it couldn't take?

IM000379.JPGKnock me over with a POS. It did a slightly respectable job. Maybe they did something to tweak the programming in the newer cam that wasn't as good. Like a Windows ME version of Windows 2000 or Vista version of XP or a goo ga gee of ha bee boo. *finger in lips and make a B-B-B sound*


A mini "Junk within a Junk" taken by the HP POS. The cans are all from ALCO, a small chain like Wally that a few years back, got tired of being in business making a modest profit, sold themselves to an investment group and went under a few years later. For awhile, they had thier own brand of sodas. I'm pretty sure they are all Shasta flavors. I have a transforming wolf, a Disney toy of a sheepdog with a cat on it's back. Next to that is a wind up, flipping mutt. Then I have a singing dog decoration purchased as a misc piece of some entire Christmas set. Next to it is a Hallmark doggie vending machine decoration. Both of those get moved to the Christmas tree for the holidays. Plus, you can barely see the Play-Doh "Fuzzy Farm Animals" set with a sheepdog that grows Play-Doh fur. Nifty. The key chain is Caribou coffee and yes, I have a set of GE computer speakers. There. Dusty.

IM000363.JPGThis post was brought to you by Good Job Bob. He's wearing a very trendy flowered vest. Resembles Trey Anastasio from Phish and has an affinity for black velvet tiger pictures. *cough* Yes, the POS was only $2. Wasn't it worth it to have another POS for only $2? That's not even a gallon of gas. It was cheaper than my other POS and takes better pictures. Still gonna keep it in my box of broken dreams. Some poor sap paid $100 or more when this POS was new. I paid $2 for it. Good Job Bob!

ARF -Ric

Kodak Akimbo Ricochet

  • Posted on
  • by

This is a blog by Ricochet to show my love to the old Kodak Color Science cameras that I've purchased in the last few months. This is to testify that, for a consumer product intended to appeal to the masses at a Wally price point, they really did take some good photos. Sit back with a kuppakoffee and a bagopoppycorn and see how many of these you've had or will soon own :) 

Background: My story starts with when digital photography started getting cheaper. "Cheaper" being under $100 for a camera and a memory chip. Up until I had my first digital, I had taken pictures, lots of pictures, but not that many pictures. Cheapest camera, cheapest film, cheapest processing. Ah, but it always cost about $10 for 24 pictures. Always. So, lots of memories went by the wayside because it was always a hassle to load film, take pics, take film to developer, wait, pick up film, some shots were not worth keeping.

Ahhh, but with digital! Erase what you don't like, print out what you do. Save them on disc forever. Make websites without a scanner. The digital photography world was my oyster. So, as with all "expensive" ( me back in 2004) purchases, I asked for a cheap digital camera for Christmas and got the Cintar DC3505 2.1m cam. It had a Sony CCD. Whoohoo!

I was off! I used the hell out of this camera. It took 4 "AAA" batteries and also took forever between pics to process. It ate the charge on a set of NIMH AAA's really really fast and it had only a few picture taking options, adjusted by the ring around the lens. It also used CF chips and I got a 64 Meg with it. I bought a 256 Meg chip for 19.99 at a Best Buy black Friday sale. (It was the only time I'd ever shopped on black Friday and the chip was normally $40.) I used to tell my friends that I had to "warm up the coals" while waiting for it to turn on. It also took slightly blurry pics so I used Irfanview to sharpen the results up 30%.

Cintar 2004-thumb-640xauto-95.jpg

Pictures taken outside were pretty decent but still had that pasty black that cheaper/earlier digital cams usually had in their photos. When my financial situation started looking up, I decided to go "state of the art" or "state of the cheapest cam I could get at Wally". It was then I entered the world of "Color Science", I became a Kodak user.


The Kodak Easyshare C653. 6.1 Meg, 2 "AA" batteries and saved to SD cards. Wally had it for $119 plus two generic SD 1g chips were $20. Now I was in business. The pictures it took were so good. It was really fast (compared to my Cintar) and so easy to turn on, snap a few photos and put away. It was like going from a Polaroid Instamatic to a Canon Rebel.  I took it with me on a trip to Florida and well, like any other cheap point and shoot, did get some dud photos. For the most part, I was very very happy. So much that I took a picture of my new fursuit that I was "gifted" while I was in Florida and sent them to Boomer. He liked them so much, he had the same camera sortly thereafter.


(Yeah, the "coffee table" is faded like that, it's not the cam's fault.) In fact, I liked this cam so much, when I destroyed the screen on mine, I went to the store and bought the same model the next day. Bigger LCD's need a bit of kid gloves when handling them. I was a bit "under the weather" returning from a visit of friends at AC in Pitt and fell down in bed (futon) with the cam still on my belt, extra batteries in the front pocket. When I awoke, the batteries had pushed on the screen and broke it. So, when I got the new one, I put the old one back in it's box if someday I'd need it again. Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of pictures later...

I was still using this cam in 2012, but it was funky. It had been dropped a few times. The battery door was not seating properly and my camera was turning off on it's own. Bless the world of EBAY as Boomer looked up the C653 and started buying replacement units for about $10 each. Here I thought I could replace my LCD finally on the cam I hadn't used from way back. Stupid me, I had put the batteries that came with the cam in the cam and forgotten about them. Bad move. The batteries leaked and made the camera worthless. I was so pissed I went out and bought a new NIKON Coolpix L28.

You see, by this time, the old Kodak had gone bye-bye. Wally now had Sanyos and Fujis and one Nikon model cheap, and that's what I bought. Never mind that a day later we combined the Kodaks into the one I currently have. I used the Nikon and was floored by the speed and quality of the pics. Ahhh, but the trouble started a few months later. The CCD was having a distortion problem. I could have gone the service route, but I found it was pretty easy to clear it when having this problem. (Maroon "rainbows" would appear on every image.) Ahh, but then I dropped it, so now the service route was out. 6 months later of steady use, the distortion showed again, and this time, stayed. About 1 year is all I got from the Nikon. That was it for me. I remember a friend saying Nikon is what someone has in grade school then they graduate to Canon college. Hmmm.

Enter Kodak again! We'd heard that the "new" Kodak was making cameras again under license from Kodak. Surely they must be as good as the older Kodaks right? They had to be using "Color Science" technology right? I wanted a new cam right away, so we went to a participating K-Mart and I bought the Kodak FZ41. It is a 16meg point and shoot and was $69. Here is a sample pic:


I was impressed with how easy it was to use and how good I thought the pictures looked. At least, THOUGHT they looked. I took a ton of pictures  and bragged to Boomer about it, so much that history repeated itself, and he bought the same thing a few days later. Ahh, but the wheels came off the wagon. Boomer thought something was odd and took some test photos, and then took some of the same photos with his Kodak 6.1 camera. The proof was in the pictures.  I did some research right after that. You know, they didn't say "Kodak Lens" on the barrel of the camera. There was no mention of "Color Science" anywhere. The pics taken with the FZ were a little bit muddier and the color wasn't as good as our 6.1's. Then I noted that JK Imaging also owned the name for GE digital cameras. (You know them? GE has been famous for quality cameras right?) Sure enough, the FZ41 was just the lowest GE camera. That's why I don't have a picture of it. When I went to Pitt two weeks later, Boomer and I returned them. (In praise of K-Mart, we returned them hassle free.) I had bought the cheapest Fuji that Wally had, and I've been moderately happy with it since. (Something changed with the FUJI and now I'm totally happy, but that's a later story. Boomer bought one of the last "new" Kodaks that was a Color Science model, but that too is for him to tell.)

A few weeks later, I was at the thrift shop that is near Boomer's house and found a Minolta Dimage 2.3 camera and two Fuji 1.3 cameras. The Fujis took Smart Media cards which I learned were scarce and no longer made. The MInolta was 4AA batteries and took a CF card. It took pics a little better than my Cintar and was two years older. I wondered what other stuff might I find at said thrift store and started looking at every thrift store...and soon I had amassed a stable of cheap cameras with some gems and a LOT of Kodaks. So, the only order for these will be their mega pixel count as they were all purchased within the last three months.


1.3 Meg. LCD picture display, in addition it has a monochrome LCD display for modes at the top. CF Card. Digital zoom only. 4 AA batteries. I took a few demo shots with this camera and decided it was too primitive. It operates really smooth and predates the "Color Science" menus on the LCD screen. A common problem with these is the 4 AA batteries fit in a flimsy plastic tray that slides into the bottom of the camera. They are very easy to break and then the cam will not work because the batteries will not stay in.  Mine is broken but a little tape fixes this up.  It turns out that Boomer has this camera and was what he was using until he got his 6.1 Kodak. Here is one he took while I still had my Cintar. Not bad in the daylight. (Is that me with a CVS "disposable" camera? )




Now we're cooking with GAS. This is one of the first "Color Science" cameras. A 2.2 meg, 2AA battery, CF card camera with no frills. It's point and shoot. Period. There is a switch that allows macro pictures to be taken and it has a digital zoom. It also used a manual view finder that is just like an old non digital camera. Polorized for your protection. I thought this would take dark muddy pictures as well, but wow! It was every bit as good as some of the pics I took with the 6.1. It's big, and no frills. I like it. The only real drawback is, with no ISO adjustment, it doesn't do well in lower light situations. So be it. Look at this Waffle House!




3.2 M, 2AA, SD... No frills, great pictures. By this time, for the average consumer, the mega pixel wars was all that was left. Almost all the cameras you could buy took good pictures. (*cough no name will be mentioned, you VIVID ly know who you are*) I got this for $4 out of a pile of cameras. Boomer remarked that it would be the cam that his mother would like. No frills, great pictures. (He just got one on another of our thrift shop trips.) This one even does video, which, looks like a old silent movie except in color. No sound, blocky, fun. However, no frills, great pictures. Ziggy Zocky Ziggy Zocky Hoy Hoy Hoy!





4.0 M, 2AA, SD and 5x Zoom. I was so happy to find this one in a pile of cameras. It was my first jr. "bridge" cam, in that it had a grip, a better zoom and all glass lens. However, for $6, it had issues. It was FILTHY. I had to clean it lots with cotton swabs and alcohol to get all of the dust out  and the intense ethnic food smell off of it. Luckily the lens still comes out fine. Ahh but the small leaves that open and closed on the lens when in use got stuck. Some of the early pics I took were taken in daylight where I couldn't see the screen so I used the view finder and didn't note half the screen was obscured by semi opened leaves.  It does shoot videos, but the microphone is blown because you need to be right up on it and shouting to hear anything. Also it changes modes on it's own when it's in auto. (I fixed this by using the auto-scene mode which uses auto plus any special settings I chose.) Plus, as you can see, the silver coating flakes off of the plastic. A common issue with some Kodak cams of this vintage. It also has some hard to press buttons.  Boomer had purchased a 4.0 Kodak off of EBay and it takes some really amazing photos in any mode with no adjustment and also has all glass lenses. I'm happy with what this cam can do as well. I ended up taking the leaves off the lens and getting a lens cap for this. With all the issues, this cam has been getting sparse use. Here's a  pic of the Robinson mall area when the leaves were fully open.





5.0 M, 2 AA, SD, Fixed with some sort of zoom. This camera was a real suprise! It was found after a second look through a box of lots of analog cameras. I missed it the first time. Glad I looked again. Other than the one broken hook on the battery door (door still closes without tape) and the extremely worn finish, this cam is the sheit! I've now made it my "car cam". It's the cam that, if I don't have any other cam with me, is small enough and takes great enough pictures, that I can have to catch the moments a tablet computer cannot. It has an ISO control which helps taking indoor photos and has a fixed/sealed lens so there is no worries about dust and dirt. The screen on the back is small but does the job, and it's still got a view finder for bright days.  I guess this was Kodaks cheapest and they released three seperate model numbers of the same cam.  With a cam this good and this small, it's amazing it has taken several years for the pinhole cameras on tablets and phones to match what this can do. (Does this look like Al Stewarts "Time Passages" album cover? ) *thanks Boom*




6.1 M, 2AA, SD, 640x480 QT at 30FPS -- Here's the one I just added to my collection. At first I thought it was the same thing as the C653 which wouldn't be a bad thing but then I used it and well... It's a year earlier that the C653 and seems like a better cam. More powerful and better pics and pic handling than the C653 (although the C653 is no slouch.) It's seems like the C653 was a Wally special, therefore dumbed a bit to his a price point that a fat guy with a Cintar could afford. In fact, just about every camera photo on this blog was taken with the C643 and with great results. (The pic above and the family pics were taken by my Fuji.) It  has a seperate place on the side of the camera to put in the SD card. A plus, except the spring on the door is wonky, but it stays closed. It also does QT movies in a full 30FPS. So audio/video quality is a bit better than any other Kodak in my collection. (I believe the C653 did 640 but at 15FPS, and 320 at 30FPS.) The camera was virtually spotless except for some scratches on the plastic around the lens. The LCD display is coated with anti-glare and makes the pictures look nice even in the sunlight.  It came with a 2G SD card, a nice case, 4 NIMH Energizer batteries (fairly new) and the video cable.  When I got home I was going to wash the perfume smell off the case and noted a small zipper on the front. I opened it and found another 1G SD chip! So, this camera in like new condition with all the perks was...wait for it... $6!   I should be happy that people are going to lower standard no option cell phone cams rather than LUGGING a seperate cam everyplace. Despite the picture quality and the zoom and the shooting modes, it's a lot easier to take a selfie of two dogs in line to buy Nimhs at a Wally near you with your cell phone. Maybe that's why Boom and I are enjoying the treasure hunt for something that we couldn't really afford when they came out. 

Family Photo

That's it. The tale of the Kodaks and all the "Color Science" splendor. Sure, Boomer and I have gotten other brands of cameras. Some with bigger lenses, some with different modes or picture qualities. I've gotten a Canon with tons of features. Boomer has a rechargeable Olympus with a big 10X zoom. I even have some cheapies and even a Fisher Price kid cam. So far, except for the TIFFs  (uncompressed) photos that two of our cams can take, the picture quality and vivid color produced by as low as the 2.2 Kodaks seems to have that extra something. In the past few days, I've found a mode on my new cheapy FUJI that rivals the TIFFs we take, but they are huge photos that eat memory, battery time and take a lot longer to download and process. For general decent pictures, (at then cheaper prices, now junk prices) the older Kodak Color Science processing can't be beat. Check your local thrift store. You may find one and fall in love.