I have been selling these cameras for about 18 months now, and I can definately say to avoid the current Kodaks like the plague. Cheap lenses are the main culprit, the kodaks are all plastic, besides just not being great quality to begin with. That is the main reason why the price is so much cheaper than other brands. I think that the lens quality is actually a little more imprtant than having extreme resolution. You would probably be better off getting a 2.1 megapixel Canon, Olympus, or Nikon. Keep in mind, the autofocus as well as overall sharpness is controlled by that lens. Also, the Kodaks only use 2 AA batteries. That gives you at best maybe an hour with rechargeable NiMH batteries. The camera dock is very overrated, its $80 and performs the same functions as a $30 USB reader and a $25 battery charger kit. Their LCD's tend to look a little too washed out, which isn't helpful when you are trying to see if your lighting is adequate for your photo. In my department, we call the Kodaks disposable digital cameras, you buy them to fool around with, then buy something better in a year or two. It does kinda make sense when you consider that kodak makes all their money from their film business. Word in the channel is that Kodak will be introducing a disposable memory card that their new cameras will be using in the next year. HP is a little better, mainly as they do use 4 AA batteries, otherwise lens quality is about the same as the Kodaks. I haven't dealt with the current crop of Fuji's, so my info about them is a year outdated, but they used to have a VERY high return rate. Some people have said good things about them, so maybe the have improved.
Anyway, thats just my 2 cents
