i41
Thx OP

snowbelt said:Great deal, Thanks!

I think so, you're welcome.

Took the print-out to store, which showed $49.99 from website. They had one last in stock, but when they rung it up, it was $48.30. Bought other filler items to make total above $50 and then used $10 off on $50. So pretty much bought the camera for $40 + tax. Not a bad deal for a 10 MP camera with 3x zoom. Bought it as a gift for someone as their first camera.

Thanks OP!

NeoMaximus said:Took the print-out to store, which showed $49.99 from website. They had one last in stock, but when they rung it up, it was $48.30. Bought other filler items to make total above $50 and then used $10 off on $50. So pretty much bought the camera for $40 + tax. Not a bad deal for a 10 MP camera with 3x zoom. Bought it as a gift for someone as their first camera.

Thanks OP!

Is there a online code for $10 off $50 or $30 off $150.

How come I can't add this to my cart.

SalamiSincere said:How come I can't add this to my cart.

Clear your cookies.

i think the deal is dead.

TakeTheActive said:In holidays'08 budget cameras group test,

dpreview said:Summary

An uninspiring camera that struggles to produce anything but uninspiring results, it's hard to see how you would recommend the C1013 over similarly priced competitors that offer better styling and more reliable results. Kodak is capable of making great budget cameras, but unfortunately the C1013 simply isn't one of them. At its best, in the right conditions, the C1013 can produce appealing photos, but it's frustrating to use and is far too likely to mess up the exposure or color to be considered a reliable point and shoot camera. Our advice? Steer clear.SourceOriginal price for this camera was $120. The street price in that review was $73. I bet if they reviewed it as a $50 camera it would be different.

This is where deals come from. Items that are not worth the original price and have to be discounted in order to move them.

I saw this camera on 2 other occasions in the past month priced at $40 but it was for the camera only, nothing else, so I passed on them.

I have also seen the same deal for $70 many times.

jimates said:Original price for this camera was $120. The street price in that review was $73. I bet if they reviewed it as a $50 camera it would be different.

This is where deals come from. Items that are not worth the original price and have to be discounted in order to move them...$129 products with design flaws do not automatically became good deals when the price drops.

dpreview said:Image quality and performance

Refusing to judge a book by its cover, we were hoping that the C1013's rather uninspiring design wouldn't be reflected in the pictures it took. Unfortunately we were to be disappointed. At base ISO the results aren't terrible (though they are fairly soft), but they weren't great either. On the plus side the colors are typical Kodak, bright and highly saturated (perfect for the beginner) and when the camera gets everything right the output is vivid, sharp and ready to print. The problem is that the camera doesn't get it right that often, with exposure and white balance problems occurring far too often (virtually every shot we took in daylight was overexposed, meaning AE compensation was in constant use). And once you get over base ISO strong watercolor-like noise reduction kicks in, with lots of noise visible at ISO 400 and above. The problem is obviously the sensor as noise is visible if you look closely even at ISO 80.

The C1013 is also relatively slow compared to the other cameras in this group; autofocus is sluggish even at the wide end of the zoom and gets worse as you zoom in further. In very low light the AF system often gives up altogether. It's not all bad news; shutter lag, menu operation and playback aren't significantly below the par for the cameras tested here, but taking pictures can be a frustrating affair, made all the worse by the fact that the results often don't justify the effort.

The biggest problem with the C1013 is exposure accuracy, though we also experienced some white balance inaccuracy, with the metering far too easily tricked by unusual framing or bright contrasty conditions. For a point and shoot camera the results are remarkably hit and miss. When it gets things right the results are actually very good, but it doesn't get it right often enough for us.IMO, if the product wasn't worth the original price because of, for example, lower megapixels, lower zoom ratio, smaller LCD screen size but took good pictures, I'd say yes, now it's a better deal. But, if the auto-exposure and/or white-balance have problems, it's not a deal at any price.

The purpose of my post was simply to make folks aware of potential reasons for possible excess inventory leading to this price reduction.