Kodak V570 gets iced for Oscars

We thought the idea of top Oscar noms getting special edition Moto PEBLs was pretty sweet. But Kodak's topped that, and proven that digicams are as worthy of bling as iPods, cellphones and laptops. The camera company is shacking up with Kwiat Diamond for a special edition EasyShare V570, which comes encrusted in 75 Kwiat diamonds in each of the Best Actress nominees' initials (we're guessing this one's Reese Witherspoon). Each is valued at $20,000 ($20,400 if you include the cost of the camera), so even if they don't win the little gold man, at least these ladies walk away with a very subtle reminder that they're rich, famous, and can still hack getting given gifts from gadget companies worth more than some people make annually.

[Kevin @ Mar 1st 2006 3:18PM]

I'll take the camera, you can keep Reese Witherspoon.

[not_a_trendwhore @ Mar 1st 2006 3:42PM]

hi, i'm a troll. spam me please: [e-mail]

[Spyvie @ Mar 1st 2006 3:43PM]

While the poor people sleepin with the shade on the light, while the poor people sleepin all the stars come out at night.

All the Hollywood clowns makin movies bout themselves they don�t give a damn about anybody else because they own a life�s wages�a life�s wages

- Steely Dan

[wilson @ Mar 1st 2006 3:45PM]

Regarding comment #1...I'll take Reese Witherspoon...you can keep the camera.

[David LaCagnina @ Mar 1st 2006 4:06PM]

I guess $100,000 is just a drop in the bucket to a giant like Kodak. This just helps illustrate to me the ridiculous profit margins Kodak is getting on their gear. I wont be burning any of my cash on their gear, that's for sure. I would think anyone who thinks this through would feel similarly. I dont want to finance asinine projects like this. Hope this project backfires in their faces.

[Steve Rhodes @ Mar 1st 2006 4:21PM]

I just can't imagine Reese, Charlize, Keira, Felicity or Dame Judi Dench toting a $20,000 camera around the next time they go out.

It seems Kodak is fiddling while photography burns.

[Tucker @ Mar 1st 2006 4:28PM]

One day, that's going to be me when I get nominated for an Oscar! I'm being serious. That's my dream.

[Andrew H @ Mar 1st 2006 4:31PM]

Guys, guys.

Kodak doesn't necessarily care if any of the stars are ever seen carrying around their gear. I've read this news story on about six news sites already today, it's publicity, and it's working thus far.

Oh, and #1/#4, I'll take both the camera and Miss RW, I have some ideas about how they can be used together.

Cheers.

[Jason @ Mar 1st 2006 6:44PM]

The cameras will probably be thrown in a drawer once the actresses get home and collect dust.

[Rusty @ Mar 1st 2006 7:23PM]

More giveaway crap for the whinny overpaid baby celebs.
Another reason I don't go to the movies but maybe once
a year. Heck, I think the only reason 2/3 of these idiots show up for these "events" is because some corp
will "give" them crap.

[Thanks @ Mar 1st 2006 7:42PM]

No problem people! I'm sure the Miss Witherspoon (who I would gladly exchange a Kodak Camera for, diamonds or no diamonds) knows even less about digital photography than she does about acting. Let's hope she does the decent thing, and auctions it off for her charity.

[carpeicthus @ Mar 1st 2006 8:01PM]

I can imagine the reaction: "So I get slapped in the face with a hefty gift tax for gaudy crap? Thanks, Kodak!"

[Jorge Santos @ Mar 1st 2006 9:30PM]

"can still hack getting given gifts from gadget companies worth more than some people make annually"

Uh? Wouldn't that be "worth twice what most people make in ten years"? Think globally.

Check wikipedia's article on poverty.

[David @ Mar 1st 2006 10:56PM]

Erm yeah, I'd ditch the camera and pick off the diamonds. They'd make a nice bracelet for the darling :-p

[Bidera @ Mar 2nd 2006 1:04AM]

Andrew H is completely right, Kodak is getting massive publicity out of their 100k, global poverty be damned!

It is kind of similar to what DeBeers did in 1930s and 1940s when they gave diamonds to actresses at Oscars to raise value of diamonds in public's eye.

Anyway, I'll take RW and for the spare cash pick up something' like this older camera:

http://www.bidera.com/cgi-bin/us/emaximarket.cgi?action=item&item=23907

[Chris @ Mar 2nd 2006 4:03AM]

The RW logo is from Robbie Williams, not Reese Witherspoon.

[Rudy @ Mar 2nd 2006 9:52AM]

Any reviews for this?

hows sound quality? battery life?

[Daniel @ Mar 3rd 2006 2:38PM]

I love this camera and that just adds a bit of class, but $20,000 thats a lot of money, well not much to some people.

[greg @ Mar 3rd 2006 10:14PM]

If they wanted to add some real value to this POS, they should've glued a Canon Elph to the front of it.

[Dan @ Mar 4th 2006 7:40AM]

Greg, there's no comparison. If you knew anything at all about consumer digital photography, you would never have made that comment.

Twin 5MP CCD's. Twin Lenses, Panorama photos, huge Bright LCD, Image stabilization...this thing takes GREAT pics.

You want to compare the v570 to a tiny 2.1mp TOY? What a moronic commment.

[John @ Mar 4th 2006 8:56AM]

The reviews on the v570 have been mixed. Most reviews start off by complaining that the 5x optical zoom isn't a true 5x optical zoom. But most like the wide angle lens.

[Tim @ Mar 4th 2006 9:03AM]

The V570 is a cool phone. I hope that Reese enjoys her new Bling. My guess is that she has the diamonds removed and has a nice necklace made out of it.

Motorola got a ton of press about the black RAZR last year. Maybe Kodak is trying to do the same...

[Martin @ Mar 5th 2006 7:09PM]

HEY comment #16... Maybe you should read the article. The only people getting one of these are the Best ACTRESS nominees. Lat time I checked Robbie Williams was MALE!

"16. The RW logo is from (for) Robbie Williams, not Reese Witherspoon."

[J @ Mar 8th 2006 3:56AM]

RW could also be for Rachel Weisz...