Samsung Digimax 880K Reviews

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

? Ask our helpful community of experts about this product or company
Samsung Digimax 880K - Ask a question now

Media Gallery for Samsung Digimax 880K

Samsung Digimax 880K
Samsung Digimax 880K
Samsung Digimax 880K

Refine your search

Use the tools below to refine your search by only displaying reviews with a certain number of star ratings or to only show reviews from a certain time period. Eg click on '1 star' to just display the reviews we have which received a 1 star rating click or 'Within the last month' to display just reviews posted over the last month.

  • Average Rating Over Time
  • Within the last month ***** (From 0 reviews)
  • Within the last 6 months *** (From 0 reviews)
  • Within the last 12 months * (From 0 reviews)

Latest Reviews

★★★☆☆
Samsung Digimax 880K

“really good starter camera, however there are cheaper...”

Written on: 26/11/2002 by Biggles. (1 review written)

really good starter camera, however there are cheaper and better on the market for what you get. Make sure you get a good repair plan with your camera for up to 3 years!… Read Full Review

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
★★★☆☆
Samsung Digimax 880K

“I bought this digital camera as a Jenoptic JD12 - same...”

Written on: 15/12/2000 by amberman. (1 review written)

I bought this digital camera as a Jenoptic JD12 - same camera but only £119. It has 800k pixels which gives you plenty of spare to produce more that adequate pictures for websites at 320x240. It works best in good light where the pictures are acceptably sharp. You can make up for the lack of zoom by cropping down to this size.

It will take good pictures in good fluorescent lighting but gets very fuzzy in low light. The built-in flash works well but has a limited range (1-1.5m).

The TWAIN… Read Full Review

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
★☆☆☆☆
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)

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… Read Full Review

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 Read 2 Comments
overview