Kodak EasyShare DX6340 Review

Overall Rating

4x F2.2 Schneider Lens,
1.8" Indoor/Outdoor LCD,
16MB Internal Memory,
Smooth and silent zoom mechanism,
Takes AA batteries,
All-metal constuction,
PAS mode allows control over shutter or aperture.

Terribly slow startup,
Preview of picture taken is too long,
Auto/Scene modes don't make use of F2.2 lens,
PAS mode all the way across mode dial,
Overly stiff and plasticky mode dial.
MOST IMPORTANT: unacceptable picture quality

On first impression, this Kodak DX6340 digital camera seems like excellent value for money. In its price range of around US$330, it is the only camera that offers 4x optical zoom and a 1.8" LCD. The bright bottom end of the lens (F2.2 at 1x zoom) also seemed like a good thing. Also, the PAS mode allows for Aperture Priority or Shutter Priority, something few cameras at this price range has (others: Canon A70, Samsung V3).

The 16MB internal memory is also a good way to backup whatever SD/MMC card you might buy for this camera, as most single-slot cameras provide 16MB or 32MB media which you have to carry around seperately. The use of AA batteries is good because rechargables are easily available at high capacities, and alkalines are found everywhere.

Turning on the camera, the startup time takes too long for my liking as the lens extends itself at a leisurely pace, albeit silently. The metal camera body is well built, except for the flimsy plastic doors and mode dial.

Focusing was acceptably fast with the passive AF sensors in place, but the preview display after you take the picture is annoyingly long. You can turn off the preview altogether, but I think most digital camera users would want to check their pictures right after taking. A timer setting for preview will be a welcomed addition. I do like the ability to delete a shot as it's shown to you in the preview.

The user interface is exceptionally easy to learn and use, something I think even my father would have no problems with (technophobe daddy). I really don't like the stiff click-action of the mode dial, which I use have to turn from one end (Off) to another (PAS mode), which brings me to another point. The Auto-Exposure computer doesn't seem to realize that it has a F2.2 lens to work with, as it will only use up to F2.8, which forces me to use Aperture priority whenever I need to do flashless dim-light photography.

Despite all the pros and cons discussed above, one very important issue remains: Image Quality. To me, this is the deal-breaker because the lens is reputable, but the Kodak sensor/processor seems to have spoilt the output quality. Almost every image taken with this camera is fuzzy and looks cartoony due to lack of details. I did a still-life comparison shot against a Nikon 3700 (selling for exactly the same price, and comes with a camera pouch), and the Nikon wins hands down in every single aspect. The only aspect where I observe the Kodak matching the Nikon is white balance and colour balance. Interested to see the shots? Drop me a comment and I'll look into it.

Very easy to use, average battery life, good features, reasonable value for money, but poor picture quality gives this camera below-average overall rating. I'd recommend the Samsung Digimax V3 if you're looking for a good lens with full manual controls. Currently using an Olympus 5060 and a Nikon 3700.

Members' Comments onrichx's Review

• andyveale on 14th Mar 2004

  Hi
  
  I am looking to buy a digital camera in the price range of £150 - £200 and may possibly go slightly higher.
  
  Was very interested in the Kodak as it seems to have got some very good reviews but then I noticed your comment on the blurry pictures.
  
  I already have a SD memory card so need the camera I buy to be compatible with this.
  
  Could you email me at mcandyveale@hotmail.com and recommend me the best camera in my price range.
  
  Many thanks
  Andrew Veale

• rohitmathew on 3rd Jun 2004

  I had purchased the Kodak DX-6340 for my father a month back. I am an amatuer and thought that the quality of images that the Kodak gave was extremely good.
  I then purchased a Nikon CP 3200 for myself. I felt that the Kodak was better as its ISO range is more than the Nikon's.
  I would really like to see the pictures that you have taken with the Kodak and also would like your valuable comments on the Nikon CP 3200.

• richx on 6th Jun 2004

  leave your e-mail address here and i'll get back to you

• rohitmathew on 8th Jun 2004

  My e-mail address is rohitmathew@rediffmail.com. Looking forward to hearing from you soon.

• Canuck44 on 10th Aug 2004

  Every other review that I have read on this camera comments on the superlative image quality. Did this person read the instructions?

• richx on 10th Nov 2005

  My apologies if I've been neglecting my obligations here - it's been awhile since I've been to reviewcentre. Now, there has been some controversy over my negative remarks about the image quality from this Kodak camera. It's noted that if you print images from this camera in 6x4/4R, you will not notice what I'm talking about, so call me a pixel-peeper if you want. However, I am not the only person who noticed this.
  
  A look around other analytical reviews of Kodak cameras of that generation revealed similar comments.
  
  Phil Askey on the SLR/c, "Ever present even when set to very low levels Kodak's noise reduction algorithm has an excessively intrusive effect on image quality leaving many areas of the image with a 'watercolor-like' appearance."
  
  Jeff Keller on the DX7440, "Kodak processes their photos a little too much, which eats away at details, giving some things (like grass) a muddy appearance." and on the DX7590, "Images are on the soft side, though, and details like grass and leaves seem "overprocessed" and fuzzy (which has been the case with recent Kodak cameras). "
  
  Source: http://www.dpreview.com, http://www.dcresource.com
  
  Glad to say, Kodak's products have always exhibit superior white-balance performance, resulting in pleasing and generally accurate colours under various lighting. Their recent products have also exhibited less of this "watercolour" effect, and the competition have also caught up in using noise reduction algorithms.