HP Photosmart 320

Opinion: my 1st

Opinion: Got this HP for $1-I like their cameras because of the very easy to use controls and
have also got a 1.0MP Photosmart 120.

Onmly 4x digital szoom, easy to choose flash settings and a small LCD do not detract
from the fact it can capture nice looking photos.

Opinion: I bought this camera about a year ago for $5.00 US, thus the 5.0 rating for value for money. It takes good photos indoors with flash, even in low light. Outdoor photos are very good, with bright colors and no color cast. I have much more expensive cameras with many more features, so this is only a backup for me. But my great grandchildren, 10 and 12, love it. They figured out how to use it with no help from me. So, if you run across one that seems to work, and the price is low, grab it for the kids, or grandkids. We have had no problems with the blurry photos others have reported.

Opinion: I like the camera, but the slowness between click and flash has made me loose some pitcures. Wish it had zoom.....

Opinion: THERE IS NOTHING BAD I CAN SAY ABOUT THIS CAMERA--IT IS NOT GOOD FOR E
XTREME CLOSEUPS WHICH IS WHY I BOUGHT A NIKON 4100 WHICH EATS B
ATTERIES LIKE JELLY BEANS. THE HP 320 USED A TOTAL OF 8 BATTERIES IN A Y
EAR AND THE LAST 4 ARE STILL GOOD. I LET A FRIEND, WHO HAS PANIC A
TTACS, USE IT BECAUSE IT IS SO EASY TO USE--SHE SAYS SHE CANT TELL THE D
IFFERENCE BETWEEN THE 320 PICS AND THOSE FROM HER SONY (WHICH D
RIVES HER CARZY BECAUSE IT'S OPERATION IS SO COUNTER-INTUITIVE. THE 3
20 IS A GREAT CAMERA--I COULDNT RECOMMEND IT MORE HIGHLY.

Opinion: I got this camera from my father for my birthday. I was taking pictures right out of the box. I'm only 12 years old but am very very smart when it comes with computers. My computer runs Win98. It was very easy to install the software and download the pictures to the computer. I print 8x10 pictures from this camera on my HP Deskjet 3620. I would reccomend this to anybody looking for a solid camera that takes great pictures.

Opinion: I also own a SONY P31 camera which gives me outstanding quality & features with ease of use. After you have used the Sony, you will find that the HP 320 is much more basic although they share the same megapixels.

The zoom function of the HP can be somewhat confusing, as well as the quality settings. With Sony you can set the picture quality & the image resolution seperately, with the HP 320 it sets the resolution automatically as you change the image quality.

I find the HP's image quality to be very good. In fact, after you have used several older model cameras (any make) the image quality is excellent. I have seen entry-level Canon cameras with a "blurry" image while this HP produce a clear photo.

After I read the comments about red-eye problems, I decided to specifically test this feature. I tested with different lightning conditions, with & without flash - each time I used the self-timer feature to capture my own eyes. My eyes were never red, even when the photo was enlarged.

The flash was relatively good - on close range. If you are shooting in the dark, do not attempt to take a photo when your target is not close-range. In a standard bedroom, for instance, you can switch off the light and the HP's flash will be more than enough.

More and more camera's can record video clips these days. Entry-level cameras usually does not include audio, so I did not expect it with the HP 320. Nonetheless, I found the recording quality to be very good. The only downside is your time limit: 30 seconds.

The menu is easy to use after you confirmed with the user manual. HP doesn't make use of writing as with Sony, so you have to guess what each button does if you did not read the manual. As I mentioned, the over-all menu is easy to use and reading the manual does not take forever, just a quick browse. The internal memory is a very good idea on the HP 320, but it does tend to slow down the menu performance a little. But don't let this put you down, its only with a few seconds and if you are not used to using a memory stick, you won't even notice the delay.

The camera's over-all design is not bad - in fact, the HP 320 looks very good. Its compact & modern, one of those designs that won't "get old" easily.

Both the Sony P31 & the HP 320 share almost the same size LCD screen. Although I found the Sony's screen to be a bit more crisp, the HP follow very closely. Although the screen size is about the same of both cameras, the actual viewing area is bit smaller on the HP. Reason being where Sony added the battery indicator, etc "on top" of the image you are viewing, HP left space beneath the image area. This is no downside, however - it makes no difference to your viewing pleassure.

Power-wise I found it hard to understand why HP decided to use four AA batteries while Sony only requires two. Anyway, if your batteries run on the low side with HP 320, try opening the compartment and closing it again, sometimes your battery meter tops up for a while. Neat!

Downloading your photos to the PC is very easy. It feaures a good software package and the camera can also be used as an additional hard-drive. Just remember to delete them from the camera after downloading.

LAST WORDS:

The over-all use, design, power management & image quality gets my thumbs-up. I like the HP 320 and taking into consideration it features an effective 2.0 megapixel quality at an awesome price, this is the camera to buy if you want good value for money under the $200 mark.

Opinion: Don't buy it! and if you bought it, take it back.

I thought this was a nifty little camera until I looked at the pictures. Not good. They were always blurry. Inside, outside, flash, no flash, action, no action, it didn't matter, the pictures were always blurry. Perhaps mine had bad optics?

I took it back after 2 days and got an Olympus D-390 instead. A far superior camera for the same money. More complicated to operate, but worth the effort.

JW