Kodak V550 vs Canon SD400?

[petaling123]

would rather buy Kodak(American brand made in China)than Japanese.But is the Canon superior/better??

[tim11]

Canon SD400 vs Kodak V550: Similar in look, similar in price, similar in weight... similar... etc.
V550 has larger LCD and ISO (800), but on other fronts the SD400 leads by a nose.... AVI movie format, larger pic size, better macro, lighter weight, smaller, thinner.... On paper, SD400 is more impressive to me.
Kodak traditionally has been a great FILM manufacturer while Canon always make good cameras. In general I think Canon cameras are more superior to Kodak's...
Pity Kodak doesn't share your patriotic sentiment by moving production to China.

[c0mrade]

This was a no brainer for me when I chose between these two. Canon's have smaller LCD that is known to crack (read on dpreview and steves-digicams), it doesn't exactly take better pictures than Kodak does, it's movie mode is allright, but it records motion jpeg which is 3/4 bigger than mpeg-4 movies on Kodak. Kodak also has anti-shake DSP in movie mode. Canon has way less preset scenes, and no manual controls, Kodak has 23 presets, and no manual control, but plentiful scene modes make up for it. Kodak's got one of the best LCD screens on the market right now 2.5" and huge resolution (270k). It performs great in dark and bright light. I wonder how Tim11 thinks that Canon's got larger screen size, they both have the same MPs. Canon is just a LITTLE bit smaller, and not that much thinner. The Kodak is built from strudy all metal body, and feels VERY solid, Canon doesn't. Kodak has a way better lens than Canon does. And yes, it's got ISO800, which you can only use at 1.9 MP, but still. Besides all of that, Canon is pricier.

I've had Kodak for a month now and am completely happy with it. Hope it helps.

[petaling123]

Definitely,
My hardworking part-time secretary works for Kodak.Her job was not axed when Kodak closed down the manufacturing plant in toronto cos she was a hardworker!
Hence i will get her to buy me the camera at staff price too.

[trikster2]

Why is the SD400's AVI video mode superior to the Kodak's MPEG4?

[tim11]

Why is the SD400's AVI video mode superior to the Kodak's MPEG4?
I originally stated Canon's cameras are more superior to Kodak's in general. Canon made cameras since 1934 while KODAK is traditionaly a film company (and disposable cams since the 80s). At no point did I state SD400 or its AVI is more superior to V550. And all I stated that my assessment was all based ON PAPER through REVIEWS & INFO in dcresource; which is of course the starting point for chosing a camera. I admit though, that I will back the SD400 simply by pedegree.
Now.. back to AVI & MPEG. AVI is raw video mode and MPEG is compressed (which means data loss), similar to RAW format and JPEG in still-picture talk. If you want to edit the footage then put into VCD or DVD, AVI is the format. No digital camera has superior video quality; dedicated miniDV camcorder is the one and personally I never use video mode in digital camera. [This is not to say everyone should do the same for one person's idea of quality differs to the next....]
c0mrade: I said KODAK LCD is larger but Canon picture is a tad larger (but only a few mere megapixel both length and width) from REVIEWS & INFO, though both is 5MP. Anyway, I agree with you on this point that shouldn't be taken into account; but just to answer your querrie how I think SD400 picture is larger.
According to REVIEW & INFO on both cam, Canon SD400 average retail price is $362 while the Kodak V550 is $380, why do you think Canon is more expensive?
Anyway, I'm not here to change petaling123's mind or to accuse that Comrade made the wrong choice. I was never in the hunt for compacts though fascinated by them.
My idea of a good camera is diff. to yours and vice versa, we all can live with that.
PS. I have read the Canon SD# cams LCD problem right here in Canon forum. Very interesting.

[trikster2]

"At no point did I state SD400 or its AVI is more superior"

Sorry Tim 11 I missunderstood when you stated "the SD400 leads by a nose.... AVI movie format" I assumed you meant you thought that was better.

The video on the SD400 is compressed, but the MPEG4 on the kodak is more compressed.

This is normally seen as an advantage as you can get more than a few minutes on a 1gb card. OTOH MPEG4 has more compression artifacts and it's harder to find editors that handle MPEG4.

Regarding taking movies with your digital camera, to each his own. For me it rocks, the main reason is I do not need to change cameras and the videos fit right into my workflow (they download into my computer at the same time as the pictures and reside in the same directories). Because I have an integrated solution I've captured litteraly hundreds of moment on video (each worth a 1000 photos!) that I would have never captured if I needed to switch to a video camera and/or get around to downloading to the camera some day (like my 8mm film that degraded so much it can't be captured).

This web site recently reviewed the kodak and liked it a lot. The one reason I won't jump all over the kodak is the reported battery life is not so hot. The video sample is a good example of the sort of artifacts/quality you'll can expect from the highly compressed MPEG4. Everything else jeff seems to like.