Kodak blows it

Have you checked out their new P880 and P850? See:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/pr/ko...0-p850_pr.html

It looks like they saw what Nikon did with their 8800 and 8400 and followed
in their footsteps. The wide angle model, with a better zoom range than the
8400 (24-140 mm), has a f/2.8 - f/4.1 lens with no image stabilization.
Only their telephoto model (36-432 mm) gets IS.

It would suck to be shooting in low light with f/4.1 and no IS.

Don www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).

I disagree. Image-stabilized digital cameras are far outnumbered by
very good 3X and 4X zoom-lens cameras. No image stabilization? Most
photographers would just use a tripod or monopod, rather than rely on
IS.

OTOH, I love the IS on my Lumix FZ1. But the 12X zoom makes it
essential.

Why not wait and see the reviews of the new Kodak cameras before
trashing them? A little objectivity goes a long way.

-Cardamon

On 25 Aug 2005 18:13:38 -0700, Cardamon Dave wrote:
I disagree. Image-stabilized digital cameras are far outnumbered by
very good 3X and 4X zoom-lens cameras. No image stabilization? Most
photographers would just use a tripod or monopod, rather than rely on
IS.

OTOH, I love the IS on my Lumix FZ1. But the 12X zoom makes it
essential.

Panasonic seems to be putting IS on all of their cameras, not just the
superzooms. Looking through the line of Lumix cameras on their website,
I can't find any, even the 3X ultracompact FX7, without IS. Any other
manufacturers doing that, or planning to? A brief trawl through
canon.com showed IS only on 12X superzooms (and SLR lenses, of course).

Why not wait and see the reviews of the new Kodak cameras before
trashing them? A little objectivity goes a long way.

No argument there.

On 25 Aug 2005 18:13:38 -0700, "Cardamon Dave" wrote:

I disagree. Image-stabilized digital cameras are far outnumbered by
very good 3X and 4X zoom-lens cameras. No image stabilization? Most
photographers would just use a tripod or monopod, rather than rely on
IS.

Carrying around a tripod is not feasible for me. I do not own a car. I get
around bicycle. When I'm traveling often the bicycles I rent don't have
back racks. I have had far too many pictures ruined because my 8400 has no
IS and a high f/stop, just like this new Kodak. Which is a Nikon copycat.
They could have done one better.

Don www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).

"Don Wiss" wrote in message
...
On 25 Aug 2005 18:13:38 -0700, "Cardamon Dave" wrote:

I disagree. Image-stabilized digital cameras are far outnumbered by
very good 3X and 4X zoom-lens cameras. No image stabilization? Most
photographers would just use a tripod or monopod, rather than rely on
IS.

Carrying around a tripod is not feasible for me. I do not own a car. I get
around bicycle. When I'm traveling often the bicycles I rent don't have
back racks. I have had far too many pictures ruined because my 8400 has no
IS and a high f/stop, just like this new Kodak. Which is a Nikon copycat.
They could have done one better.

How about a light, compact monopod?
That would really help a great deal, and would strap to nearly any bicycle
frame.
Consider it. It makes a HUGE difference.
In fact, one thing many don't realize is that even if you have to (for some
reason) lift a monopod off the ground while using it, it STILL has a
surprisingly stabilizing effect, since your camera becomes a small part of a
weighted structure hanging below it. -This removes all tiny hand-gitters,
and reduces them to what is, at worst, very slow, steady motion...more
steady than hand holding. I know it sounds strange, but doubters should try
this for times when you don't have time to fully set up with teh monopod.
Just having it attached--and even partially extended below your camera
help--especially with smaller cameras that are more subject to hand-gitters.

-Mark

Mark² wrote:
"Don Wiss" wrote in message
...

On 25 Aug 2005 18:13:38 -0700, "Cardamon Dave" wrote:


I disagree. Image-stabilized digital cameras are far outnumbered by
very good 3X and 4X zoom-lens cameras. No image stabilization? Most
photographers would just use a tripod or monopod, rather than rely on
IS.

Carrying around a tripod is not feasible for me. I do not own a car. I get
around bicycle. When I'm traveling often the bicycles I rent don't have
back racks. I have had far too many pictures ruined because my 8400 has no
IS and a high f/stop, just like this new Kodak. Which is a Nikon copycat.
They could have done one better.


How about a light, compact monopod?
That would really help a great deal, and would strap to nearly any bicycle
frame.
Consider it. It makes a HUGE difference.
In fact, one thing many don't realize is that even if you have to (for some
reason) lift a monopod off the ground while using it, it STILL has a
surprisingly stabilizing effect, since your camera becomes a small part of a
weighted structure hanging below it. -This removes all tiny hand-gitters,
and reduces them to what is, at worst, very slow, steady motion...more
steady than hand holding. I know it sounds strange, but doubters should try
this for times when you don't have time to fully set up with teh monopod.
Just having it attached--and even partially extended below your camera
help--especially with smaller cameras that are more subject to hand-gitters.

-Mark


I'll second the stabilising effect a "non-grounded" mono pod has. I took
apart an old tripod with cylindrical legs and turned it into a mono
which slips into the front straps of my Tamrac 3 backpack. The camera
actually feels steadier when the unextended legs are braced against my
body. The bag's always ready to go, with camera, 2 lenses, a flash, mem
cards, spare battery and mono pod ... right next to my desk. The tripod
hangs on the wall and mostly gets a cursory glance as I head for the door.

Mark=B2 (lowest even number here) skrev:

How about a light, compact monopod?
That would really help a great deal, and would strap to nearly
any bicycle frame. Consider it. It makes a HUGE difference.

Monopods are great - as alternatives to tripods. But being obliged to
bring one as soon as one brings the camera would suck big time for me.
It=B4s easy to just strap a camera around your shoulder whenever you go
out. Having to put a monopod somewhere adds considerably to the hassle,
and, in addition, mentally transforms "giong somewhere with the camera
around just in case" into "embarking on a photograpical expedition".
And the seconds you need to screw it onto the camera can make you miss
the shooting opportunity.

In fact, one thing many don't realize is that even if you have to
(for some reason) lift a monopod off the ground while using it, it
STILL has a surprisingly stabilizing effect, since your camera
becomes a small part of a weighted structure hanging below it.
-This removes all tiny hand-gitters, and reduces them to what is,
at worst, very slow, steady motion...more steady than hand holding.

This is but one of several ways of acheiving a steadier aim. My
monopod-free way of doing it is to toggle to LCD display instead of EVF
view, and then hold out the camera in front of your face, until the
neck strap is straightened.

If I can then lean my back against something - such as a tree or a wall
- I have a 30-50% chance of getting a usefully sharp shot at 1/4 of a
second with no IS. I did that a lot in museums back when I only had a
CP995.

OTOH, doing the same thing with my FZ20 - i.e. with IS - doesn't seem
to improve this performance all that much. I suspect that the motion
there is a bit too slow to be detected by Panny's IS gyros.

Jan B=F6hme

On 29 Aug 2005 03:14:07 -0700, "Jan Böhme" wrote:

Mark² (lowest even number here) skrev:

How about a light, compact monopod?
That would really help a great deal, and would strap to nearly
any bicycle frame. Consider it. It makes a HUGE difference.

Monopods are great - as alternatives to tripods. But being obliged to
bring one as soon as one brings the camera would suck big time for me.
It´s easy to just strap a camera around your shoulder whenever you go
out. Having to put a monopod somewhere adds considerably to the hassle,
and, in addition, mentally transforms "giong somewhere with the camera
around just in case" into "embarking on a photograpical expedition".
And the seconds you need to screw it onto the camera can make you miss
the shooting opportunity.

As can taking the lens cap off. Use a quick release instead of
screwing things. I takes no longer than lens cap removal.

Mark² wrote:

"Don Wiss" wrote in message
...

On 25 Aug 2005 18:13:38 -0700, "Cardamon Dave" wrote:


I disagree. Image-stabilized digital cameras are far outnumbered by
very good 3X and 4X zoom-lens cameras. No image stabilization? Most
photographers would just use a tripod or monopod, rather than rely on
IS.

Carrying around a tripod is not feasible for me. I do not own a car. I get
around bicycle. When I'm traveling often the bicycles I rent don't have
back racks. I have had far too many pictures ruined because my 8400 has no
IS and a high f/stop, just like this new Kodak. Which is a Nikon copycat.
They could have done one better.


How about a light, compact monopod?
That would really help a great deal, and would strap to nearly any bicycle
frame.
Consider it. It makes a HUGE difference.
In fact, one thing many don't realize is that even if you have to (for some
reason) lift a monopod off the ground while using it, it STILL has a
surprisingly stabilizing effect, since your camera becomes a small part of a
weighted structure hanging below it. -This removes all tiny hand-gitters,
and reduces them to what is, at worst, very slow, steady motion...more
steady than hand holding. I know it sounds strange, but doubters should try
this for times when you don't have time to fully set up with teh monopod.
Just having it attached--and even partially extended below your camera
help--especially with smaller cameras that are more subject to hand-gitters.

-Mark


Building on the monopod concept, but without a monopod, consider this.
Attach a strong cord to the Tripod Screw. Put a loop on one end of the
cord that will allow you to put your foot through it. Raise the camera
until there is considerable tension in the cord.
Extremely light, extremely cheap and very effective.
Bob Williams

Bob Williams wrote:
Mark² wrote:

"Don Wiss" wrote in message
...

On 25 Aug 2005 18:13:38 -0700, "Cardamon Dave"
wrote:
I disagree. Image-stabilized digital cameras are far outnumbered by
very good 3X and 4X zoom-lens cameras. No image stabilization? Most
photographers would just use a tripod or monopod, rather than rely
on IS.

Carrying around a tripod is not feasible for me. I do not own a
car. I get around bicycle. When I'm traveling often the bicycles I
rent don't have back racks. I have had far too many pictures ruined
because my 8400 has no IS and a high f/stop, just like this new
Kodak. Which is a Nikon copycat. They could have done one better.


How about a light, compact monopod?
That would really help a great deal, and would strap to nearly any
bicycle frame.
Consider it. It makes a HUGE difference.
In fact, one thing many don't realize is that even if you have to
(for some reason) lift a monopod off the ground while using it, it
STILL has a surprisingly stabilizing effect, since your camera
becomes a small part of a weighted structure hanging below it. -This
removes all tiny hand-gitters, and reduces them to what is, at
worst, very slow, steady motion...more steady than hand holding. I
know it sounds strange, but doubters should try this for times when
you don't have time to fully set up with teh monopod. Just having it
attached--and even partially extended below your camera
help--especially with smaller cameras that are more subject to
hand-gitters. -Mark


Building on the monopod concept, but without a monopod, consider this.
Attach a strong cord to the Tripod Screw. Put a loop on one end of the
cord that will allow you to put your foot through it. Raise the camera
until there is considerable tension in the cord.
Extremely light, extremely cheap and very effective.
Bob Williams

That works well. I've tried it, and it definitely gets rid of most
hand-jitters.