Samsung Digimax 880K Review

Click here if this is your business
★★☆☆☆
2.2 / 5
From 3 reviews
0% of users recommend this
Click here if this is your business
  • Image Quality

  • Features

  • Ease of Use

  • Value For Money

Godrot.'s review of Samsung Digimax 880K

★☆☆☆☆

“OK, so it's a budget camera. Does that mean I have to...”

Written on: 27/05/2000 by Godrot. (1 review written)

Good Points
Errmm....it takes batteries?

Bad Points
Poor 'focus-free' lens, spurious operating system, lack of screen, plastic body

General Comments
OK, so it's a budget camera. Does that mean I have to be nice? The Samsung Digimax feels tacky, light and plasticky, like a kiddie's toy camera. NOT what I would fancy forking out £150 for. The lens is focus-free (they couldn't afford a TTL autofocus system at this price) and gives consistently fuzzy, badly out of focus results. I can honestly say that the lens is focus-free. Never once did it come close to focussing while I used it.



The controls are fiddly, as there is only an LCD on top of the camera. Ordinarily, this wouldn't be an issue (as on 35mm cameras, for example) but in the Digimax's case, the implementation is so lame it bears mentioning. When changing quality (presumably from 'bad' to 'worse') there is a pause, prompting you, at first, to think that nothing has registered, so of course you try again, only to find that it has just processed your initial request, and now gets tied up for another four or five seconds while it tries to sort your new command. Is this what they did with all those unwanted Sinclair ZX81 processors?



Budget means cheap. Under no circumstances buy this camera, as I can find nothing about it that would make me recommend it. Pay the extra and get a Kodak DC215 or a Fuji MX1200.

  • Value For Money

If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

3034_Jon.'s Response to 268_Godrot.'s Review

Written on: 21/07/2001

Perhaps you are not using this camera correctly, most of my pics are in focus and excellent quality, and the macro switch sorts out the close ups to a reasonable degree.

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.

12284_Peter Newman.'s Response to 268_Godrot.'s Review

Written on: 09/02/2002

What exactly do you mean by high/low quality. There is no such setting, only macro and normal. I would disagree with you entirely, i think that this camera is great for taking photo's for websites with. Check out:
<br>( http://rain.prohosting.com/bwventur/cgi-bin/gallery/gallery.cgi )for proof. With a normal camera I took about 24 pictures a year, with my digital i take about 1000 a year. So it does let you have more freedom. I admit it could do with a screen but then the batterys would run out quicker and it would cost loads more.
<br>
<br>Peter N

Reply to this comment
If you are commenting on behalf of the company that has been reviewed, please consider upgrading to Official Business Response for higher impact replies.
Report this review