Labs

Kodak's digital cameras aren't to everyone's taste. The company has decided that ordinary people need protecting from the technicalities of digital imaging, and its EasyShare system tries to sweep it all under the carpet. You take the shot, tell the camera what you want, hook it up to your computer using the optional Camera Dock and the software does the rest. The trouble with this hand-holding is that you never really learn what's going on, and if something goes wrong you've no idea why or what to do about it.

Image quality

Kodak's cameras are no style icons, either. Chunky and plasticky, they're necessary evils rather than objects of desire. But they are cheap. It's what's inside that counts, after all, and Kodak digital cameras regularly startle us with the image quality and exposure accuracy they produce - which seems completely at odds with their agricultural build. Sharpness is good, colours are bright and punchy, exposures are spot-on, and there's no shutter lag because the Kodak has a fixed-focus lens. Yes, we complained about that with the FujiFilm, but here we got much better, more consistent and reliable results with close-ups.

Features

Should we give the CX4210 a bit of a black mark

ADVERTISEMENT

for that fixed-focus lens? We're inclined not to, because it seems to make little difference to this camera's overall performance. It's a little lacking in features compared to the Canon and the Fuji - in particular, we couldn't find any white balance control. You can adjust the exposure in difficult lighting with the EV compensation menu, but the Kodak's exposure system is reliable enough to make that a pretty rare event. The 16MB internal memory storage is pretty generous in a 2-megapixel camera (though admittedly the Fuji A202 comes with a 16Mb xD Picture card), and while overall the Kodak is pretty basic, look at the price!

Design

Should we rate the Kodak for its styling? It's a personal thing, and many people might find it quite attractive. They'd be mad, of course. Styling aside, the buttons are cheap-feeling, but they work well enough, they're well-spaced and they do the job. The on/off switch around the lens is a bit stiff (it also moves the lens cover), and the navipad on the backplate could be more positive, but it's easy to slip into the trap of comparing a £116 camera with 'proper' cameras costing three times as much. Given its price, and looking at its rivals, the Kodak's build and design is actually rather good.

Overall

Our overall rating takes into account the scores for image quality, features and design, but it's also adjusted for price. This is where the Kodak wins. If you're shopping for a budget camera, you're looking for one that gives you the most for your money - not necessarily the best and most expensive. The Kodak is hardly more expensive than a jumped-up webcam - and yet provides usability and quality of results that put it in a completely different league. If they all cost the same, we might pick the Fuji or the Canon over the Kodak. But they don't.