Kodak CX6445 vs. DX6340 or DX7440

Greetings PFBloom,

Sorry to hear about your trouble with the CX6445.

That camera was sold through Walmart I believe and was similar to the DX6440
with some feature differences. It should provide excellent results. I have a
DX6440 and find it to yield excellent pictures. The DX7440 was the next step
up from that camera. If you are having trouble with it, then I suggest you
follow the usual support route. I might be able to help if you run into
trouble. The camera came with the full one year warranty as it is with all
Kodak cameras. The model is not known for artifacting.

When you did this comparison, did you use the same subject and lighting
etc.? Did you use any adjustments on the cameras?

I know that you can get an artifact of fringing if the image is overexposed.
Were your subjects outside, near a window, or in general in bright areas of
the scene?

You can reach our team to get direct service by calling 800 235-6325.

I will be around if you want to share on this.

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company




"pfbloom" <pfbloom DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133974370.264930.299860@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> I recently purchased a Kodak CX6445 4MP from a refurb dealer -- did it
> because my wife has had good experiences with our DX6340 3.2 MP camera.
>
> The CX6445 shows significantly more artifacting, however -- especially
> visible in fine detail, and in backgrounds. Leaves on a distant tree
> are almost impressionistic in their lack of detail -- look like they've
> been painted with a large brush. It's kind of a cool effect, very
> painterly at 2x or 3x magnification -- if only that were what I was
> going for!!
>
> This is in noticable difference from the lower pixel count DX6340,
> which appears to resolve finer detail better than the 4MP camera. I
> also compared the CX6445 output to a nweer DX7440 and see the same lack
> of detail difference.
>
> Several questions then:
>
> 1. Is there some software difference between these CX and DX cameras?
> The specs lead me to believe that the 4MP sesor in the CX6445 and
> DX6440 are the same. I do notice that firmware update availability and
> recommendation is different for the CX and DX series.
>
> 2. Is there perhaps some kind of backfocus issue with this particular
> camera -- or maybe a bad sensor, or bad lens.
>
> 3. Or is this just a bad apple camera. Other Kodaks I've used have
> produced fine results, and all have great ergonomics and outstanding UI
> design. I use Canon and Nikon digitals as well and do not see these
> issues there. Have read about Kodak's agressive compression scheme, and
> wonder whether it is even stronger in the CX series to squeeze more
> photos on a card....
>
> Feedback??
>
> pfbloom
>
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak CX6445 vs. DX6340 or DX7440 

Both ASAAR and Ron have good suggestions, and I've done some reading on
this forum and the dpreview forums that uncovered other complaints
about agressive noise reduction (not compression, apparently) in Kodak
CX and DX cameras.

I've been happy with my previous Kodak point and shoot, however, a
DX6340 which is a 3-megapixel camera, so I did some comparison testing
with the newer 4-megapixel CX6445,

Interestingly, for the same image framing and exposure the 4-meg CX6445
produces file sizes that are 20% smaller than the 3-meg DX6340 --
exactly the opposite of what one would expect !! Both cameras set to
the same Best 3:2 image setting, BTW.

Additionally the 4-meg CX6445 shows marked softness at any setting
beyond moderate wide angle, which leads me to believe there may be a
focus problem with the mechanism that is probably true at full WA but
hidden by the depth of field at the focal length.

The file size differences are perplexing, however, because it would
seem to indicate that the CX series has more agressive image processing
than the DX series -- maybe Kodak tries to milk more images per memory
card for average consumers who may value this attribute more than image
quality ???

I am sending the camera in under warranty to check the focus problem.
Hope this is it, and that it can be corrected, because the Kodak series
are really tops in user interface and ease of use. As mentioned before
I have been very pleased with the DX6340 as a snapshot and travel
camera, and have used a borrowed DX7440 with excellent results.

Paul B.
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak CX6445 vs. DX6340 or DX7440 

pfbloom wrote:
> Both ASAAR and Ron have good suggestions, and I've done some reading on
> this forum and the dpreview forums that uncovered other complaints
> about agressive noise reduction (not compression, apparently) in Kodak
> CX and DX cameras.
>
> I've been happy with my previous Kodak point and shoot, however, a
> DX6340 which is a 3-megapixel camera, so I did some comparison testing
> with the newer 4-megapixel CX6445,
>
> Interestingly, for the same image framing and exposure the 4-meg CX6445
> produces file sizes that are 20% smaller than the 3-meg DX6340 --
> exactly the opposite of what one would expect !! Both cameras set to
> the same Best 3:2 image setting, BTW.
>
> Additionally the 4-meg CX6445 shows marked softness at any setting
> beyond moderate wide angle, which leads me to believe there may be a
> focus problem with the mechanism that is probably true at full WA but
> hidden by the depth of field at the focal length.
>
> The file size differences are perplexing, however, because it would
> seem to indicate that the CX series has more agressive image processing
> than the DX series -- maybe Kodak tries to milk more images per memory
> card for average consumers who may value this attribute more than image
> quality ???
>
> I am sending the camera in under warranty to check the focus problem.
> Hope this is it, and that it can be corrected, because the Kodak series
> are really tops in user interface and ease of use. As mentioned before
> I have been very pleased with the DX6340 as a snapshot and travel
> camera, and have used a borrowed DX7440 with excellent results.
>
> Paul B.
>
I am going to assume that the DX6440 and CD6445 are basically similar.
The DX6440 does have excessive compression, which renders some shots
rather ugly. Taking pictures of trees, and grass seems particularly
prone to exhibit this overcompression.
 >> Stay informed about: Kodak CX6445 vs. DX6340 or DX7440