Kodak: 6440 vs. 7440

There's a long list of differences in function; that info is easy
enough to obtain. What I'm wondering is, why are there different
maximum apertures? The lenses look identical. I thought these two
differed only in features and battery type, but apparently not.

Can I expect equal quality of image between these two cameras (with all
other factors constant)?

The flash ranges are different, too, but that's possibly due to the
difference in max. aperture.

Why do they limit compensation (flash & exposure) to only +/- one stop
on the 7440?

I see that Kodak has stolen the Custom setting from Canon (G3, etc.).
Smart move. That was one of the handiest settings on the G3.

Why does Kodak need so many different models? It really tilts the
selection process toward 'Mission Creep'. Maybe deliberately... These
are some nice models on paper. I had never seriously considered buying
a Kodak before. I guess a little close-mindedness really limited my
choices!

Any comments / first-hand experience?

Thanks!

Robert Barr wrote:
There's a long list of differences in function; that info is easy
enough to obtain. What I'm wondering is, why are there different
maximum apertures? The lenses look identical. I thought these two
differed only in features and battery type, but apparently not.

Can I expect equal quality of image between these two cameras (with all
other factors constant)?

The flash ranges are different, too, but that's possibly due to the
difference in max. aperture.

Why do they limit compensation (flash & exposure) to only +/- one stop
on the 7440?

I see that Kodak has stolen the Custom setting from Canon (G3, etc.).
Smart move. That was one of the handiest settings on the G3.

Why does Kodak need so many different models? It really tilts the
selection process toward 'Mission Creep'. Maybe deliberately... These
are some nice models on paper. I had never seriously considered buying
a Kodak before. I guess a little close-mindedness really limited my
choices!

Any comments / first-hand experience?

Thanks!


My experience is with the Kodak DX6440, and it has been generally
positive. The camera is easy to use, and makes generally good pictures.
I have noted a bit of a problem with excessive compression on some
types of subject, such as trees and other greenery. Otherwise, the
pictures are great. The camera controls are easy to use, in most cases,
and the controls are well-placed. The camera is small enough for
trouser pockets, and it seems sturdy (except for the battery door).

I suspect that Kodak has made a firm commitment to the consumer digital
camera market and wants to hit every price/performance point in the
spectrum from beginner to serious snapshot taker. I think they have a
good line and plenty of choices.

Robert Barr wrote:
There's a long list of differences in function; that info is easy
enough to obtain. What I'm wondering is, why are there different
maximum apertures? The lenses look identical. I thought these two
differed only in features and battery type, but apparently not.

Can I expect equal quality of image between these two cameras (with all
other factors constant)?

The flash ranges are different, too, but that's possibly due to the
difference in max. aperture.

Why do they limit compensation (flash & exposure) to only +/- one stop
on the 7440?

I see that Kodak has stolen the Custom setting from Canon (G3, etc.).
Smart move. That was one of the handiest settings on the G3.

Why does Kodak need so many different models? It really tilts the
selection process toward 'Mission Creep'. Maybe deliberately... These
are some nice models on paper. I had never seriously considered buying
a Kodak before. I guess a little close-mindedness really limited my
choices!

Any comments / first-hand experience?

Thanks!


My experience is with the Kodak DX6440, and it has been generally
positive. The camera is easy to use, and makes generally good pictures.
I have noted a bit of a problem with excessive compression on some
types of subject, such as trees and other greenery. Otherwise, the
pictures are great. The camera controls are easy to use, in most cases,
and the controls are well-placed. The camera is small enough for
trouser pockets, and it seems sturdy (except for the battery door).

I suspect that Kodak has made a firm commitment to the consumer digital
camera market and wants to hit every price/performance point in the
spectrum from beginner to serious snapshot taker. I think they have a
good line and plenty of choices.

Would you say that the lower-light autofocus performs about as well as
advertised? That was a major frustration with my G3.

My experience is with the Kodak DX6440, and it has been generally
positive. The camera is easy to use, and makes generally good pictures.
I have noted a bit of a problem with excessive compression on some
types of subject, such as trees and other greenery. Otherwise, the
pictures are great.

Robert Barr wrote:
Would you say that the lower-light autofocus performs about as well as
advertised? That was a major frustration with my G3.

My experience is with the Kodak DX6440, and it has been generally
positive. The camera is easy to use, and makes generally good
pictures. I have noted a bit of a problem with excessive compression
on some types of subject, such as trees and other greenery.
Otherwise, the pictures are great.


I have had no problem with low light focus. It may take a bit longer,
but it seems to work well enough.

Robert Barr wrote:
Would you say that the lower-light autofocus performs about as well as
advertised? That was a major frustration with my G3.

My experience is with the Kodak DX6440, and it has been generally
positive. The camera is easy to use, and makes generally good
pictures. I have noted a bit of a problem with excessive compression
on some types of subject, such as trees and other greenery.
Otherwise, the pictures are great.


I have had no problem with low light focus. It may take a bit longer,
but it seems to work well enough.

Well, thanks. I'm trying to decide between the two, and it's not an
obvious choice at this point.



I have had no problem with low light focus. It may take a bit longer,
but it seems to work well enough.

Robert Barr wrote:


Well, thanks. I'm trying to decide between the two, and it's not an
obvious choice at this point.



I have had no problem with low light focus. It may take a bit longer,
but it seems to work well enough.


There are many improvements in the 7440, and if it had been available
when I bought the 6440, I would have bought the 7440.

Robert Barr wrote:


Well, thanks. I'm trying to decide between the two, and it's not an
obvious choice at this point.



I have had no problem with low light focus. It may take a bit longer,
but it seems to work well enough.


There are many improvements in the 7440, and if it had been available
when I bought the 6440, I would have bought the 7440.