Kodak EasyShare C875 Review

In the annals of photography, a few brands stand out as film juggernauts that barely made the jump to digital and, in some cases, died in the process. Leica. Polaroid. Eastman Kodak. How far the mighty have fallen, friends. Leica is aiming for the stars, Polaroid is almost gone, and Kodak, bless its heart, is hanging on by a thread. Has old Kodachrome fallen yet? No, it hasn’t, thanks to easy to use entry-level cameras like the C875.

I have heard some complaints about the Easyshare line, but I used this camera for about three weeks and found few problems. As an 8-megapixel point-and-shoot, it is sufficiently simple to keep Grandma from accidentally taking snaps of her orthopedic shoes and offers enough quality to keep the mid-range camera user happy.


The camera is clad in chromed metal and has a 37-185mm lens with 5x optical zoom. The digital zoom is all but useless without a tripod. It has 21 scene modes, ranging from close-up to “baby” and offers on-board color and brightness adjustment using Kodak’s Perfect Touch technology. It also has an interesting panoramic stitching system which knits three photos together to make one large one.

All of this adds up to quite a bit of power in a small package that runs on two AA batteries, another useful feature for those not willing or able to remember to bring along a charger. It uses a proprietary USB cable under the SD/MMC card door and you control most of the menu functions with a little joystick and four buttons on the back. The “Share” button can tag images to print or, using Kodak’s own software, email, once you dock with your PC.


All of this works well. If I gave this camera to my mother, for example, she would be able to pick it up and snap away, ignoring the scene modes entirely. Face tracking makes it easy to pick out figures on a busy background and the 2.5-inch LCD screen is easy on the eyes. The images on the LCD—and, to some extent, in the JPEGs this camera creates—are fairly grainy. They are, however, acceptable.

Now for the bad news. If you intend to use this for anything other than a few vacation snaps, keep looking. The close-up quality is fairly poor even in well lit conditions and the colors are washed out. Here, for example, is a scene taken with a Canon Digital Rebel XT.

And here is the Kodak shot:

Go ahead. Yell at me. Say I’m comparing a Pinto to a Ferrari. However, I’m trying to show how this camera stacks up against my benchmark DSLR. While the picture is fairly clear, these images were taken with a tripod in the same overhead lighting at the same distance. There is some grain in the Kodak photo and there is very little depth. The C875 has little depth of field, offering a flatter, deader image. The colors are also a bit washed out. Both shots were taken in “Automatic” mode with no alterations.

That said, if this is for Grandma or Mom for the holidays, then purchase away. Unless they’re WeeGee, this thing will work just fine. It is fairly large, about one inch thick by four inches wide, so it’s easy to grab. It’s also reasonably sturdy and some past issues with EasyShare aside, it is a serviceable point and shoot. If you’re looking for amazing photos, you’ve come to the wrong place. If you’re looking to take a few pics of Fido dressed up like a turkey, then by all means pick this camera up. It is available now for $299.

Tags: , ,
  •   

10 Comments/Pingbacks so far

 
no image
Paul Marshall (Who am I?)

Dear John;
That was kind of a shallow review on the Kodak C875. Comparing one of it’s shots with a digital Rebel is okay, but that hardly constitutes a review. What about shots using the manual modes or aperture priority, say at f8 ? That should give you some depth. By the way the Rebel shot looks quite underexposed. The windmill is all but blacked out and the object in the foreground..what is it? In the Kodak shot I can read “irardelli” on the package in the forground and see detail in the windmill. Looks like the light meter was trying to read the shadows in low ambient light which it correctly did. What about the flash performance of the Kodak, and the characteristics of the LCD…does it gain up in low light, is it fairly easy to read in sunlight? Is there any purple fringing across the zoom range? Is distortion at wide and telephoto extremes very significant? Whats your background in photography? Are you really competant at helping the public to evaluate cameras? Don’t answer that because I’m sure that John is Bigg on himself.

 
no image
Davyo, Las Vegas, Nevada (Who am I?)

Yea, what Paul (the other poster) said and more.

The image from the Kodak looks better than the Canon image.

I also own many digital cameras, 2 of them are Kodaks, and I gota say the Kodaks take some pretty darn good pictures,, most of the time the Kodak pictures are better than my Panasonic and Sony cameras that I own.
Also, a few of the Canons I have taken home and tried out got returned after I compared them to my Kodaks.

Kodaks I own “Z612″ and a older “V550″,,, I think Im going to be picking up the C875 next.

Davyo

 
no image
kevin (Who am I?)

John, are you kidding me? the Kodak c875 image is sharper then the rebel junk. The rebels image, the colors are smeared together do to the make up and firmware that the CMOS must have to work. Where as the C875’s color is defined and crisp.
the rebel might perform better as the higher iso and f numbers but in normal outside day light the C875 will produce a better image every time.
I own the Pentax ist DL (fake looking color and low MP) and Canon rebel & A640 (Canon images are soft)and a Minolta D7 (great at handheld IR work). The Kodak out performs them all in normal shooting. The only advantage the DSLR’s have is the night photo shots at football games and such on account of the higher ISO and stronger noise removal built into the camera’s firmware.

 
no image
kevin (Who am I?)

The canons image, the pumpkin is red? the Kodak recorded the color perfect and the light perfect. I never saw a red pumpkin before. LOL!!!!!!!!

In the kodak’s image the chair is sharp where as the canon is blured. what your saying don’t make sence about flat images. Flat images are images that have shallow BG’s images that “pop out”, have sharp foregrounds and BG’s.

 
no image
Click Here (Who am I?)

It is accurate that tracking down truthful info on this topic can be troublesome.

Trackbacks/Pings

Leave a Comment

« Back to text comment

Comment template by SezWho

CrunchGear Sponsors