I am this close to buying the Kodak DC290 and a new Dell computer with USB( pentium 600 )...since the 290 has a usb port as does the computer, is there any advantage to buying a card reader to transfer images from the CF card to my hard drive? I understand the Kodak ships with software which enables the computer to look at the camera as another drive and read right from the card while it is in the camera...is the the card reader for convenience or is it also quicker? Also, is the optional AC source simply used for transferring pictures? Why not simply use a 2nd set of rechargeables? many thanks...like your site..have learned a lot for a beginner to digital cameras...MMayn05@aol.com

-- Marc Maynard (mmayn05@aol.com), February 23, 2000

Answers

I personally feel like slapping the flash card in the reader is the easiest thing to do and , not every camera, but SOME USB cameras download much slower than the card readers. The AC adapter would only be a must for a serial transfer where your looking at 30 seconds per image or the like. USB should be able to dump the card rather quickly so battery life won't be much of an issue. For what its worth, and I'm sure this will miff someone, buy the Nikon 990 in a month or two. I've used the DC290 and the 3 megapixel mode is no better than a 2 megapixel camera like the 950. You can interpolate the image up on the computer with much more control than the DC290 so the net worth of the "3 Megapixel Camera (interpolated)" is of limited value. It is a fine camera however, I just don't like the marketing strategy of Kodak on this one.

-- Cris Daniels (danfla@gte.net), February 26, 2000.