<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
	<channel>
		<title><![CDATA[Kodak V610 Reviewed (Verdict: Ehhh...) - Gizmodo Comments]]></title>
		
	    	<lastBuildDate><![CDATA[Fri, 28 Apr 2006 10:50:46 EDT]]></lastBuildDate>
	    	<pubDate><![CDATA[Fri, 28 Apr 2006 10:50:46 EDT]]></pubDate>
		<link><![CDATA[http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/digital-cameras/kodak-v610-reviewed-verdict-ehhh-170219.php]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
		<item>
		    <title><![CDATA[Kodak V610 Reviewed (Verdict: Ehhh...)]]></title>
		    <link><![CDATA[http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/digital-cameras/kodak-v610-reviewed-verdict-ehhh-170219.php#c112694]]></link>
										
		    <description><![CDATA[haven't tried this guy out, but after recently researching cameras for myself and family, I can say that offering anything more than 3.2x optical in a non-protruding lens is pretty cool.  I can see where the 'skip' would be annoying, but not near as annoying as those no-optical zoom POS cameras that Kodak puts out. <p>thrillhouse</p>]]></description>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[thrillhouse]]></dc:creator>
		    <guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[4:170219:c112694]]></guid>
		    <pubDate><![CDATA[Fri, 28 Apr 2006 10:50:46 EDT]]></pubDate>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>