If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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). |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Don Wiss wrote:
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 don't think Kodak has 'blown it' at all. It is the responsibility of the purchaser to determine if the equipment is suitable for the intended purpose. If what you need is a camera with IS, then BUY ONE. Many find that their purposes don't require one. Bottom line, if you need full zoom, then you need more light, or a faster ISO setting, or post-processing. -- Ron Hunter |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Ron Hunter wrote:
I don't think Kodak has 'blown it' at all. It is the responsibility of the purchaser to determine if the equipment is suitable for the intended purpose. If what you need is a camera with IS, then BUY ONE. But I want a camera with a wide angle and IS for low light. Tell me which camera has that? Don www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom). |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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). |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Don Wiss wrote: But I want a camera with a wide angle and IS for low light. Tell me which camera has that? Don www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom). Konica Minolta DiMage A1/A2/A200 are all 24-200mm. You can also buy wide angle converrters for most cameras in this class. Canon, Nikon, Panasonic you name it. If they don't make it themselves, companies like Raynox, Sunpak, and Kenko do. (sometimes with step adapter though) You can also get teleconverter lenses and closeup attatchment lenses to broaden the built-in lens capabilities. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Don Wiss" wrote in message ... On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Ron Hunter wrote: I don't think Kodak has 'blown it' at all. It is the responsibility of the purchaser to determine if the equipment is suitable for the intended purpose. If what you need is a camera with IS, then BUY ONE. But I want a camera with a wide angle and IS for low light. Tell me which camera has that? Don www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom). Most people using point-and-shoots don't feel they need IS on wide angle. Personally, I'd like IS on everything from my teles to wide, but that's on DSLR lenses... |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 22:38:38 -0400, Don Wiss wrote:
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). My wife and I have no car but I carry a tripod around on my bike and for the times that my tripod is too bulky I slip my monopod into my panniers. The monopod is light and easily carried even attached to the camera case. There is no great effort involved and I am not a youngster (73) but the convenience of having a support far outweighs the energy cost. -- Neil Delete delete to reply by email |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
PMAI Announcement Regarding Kodak | Walt Hanks | Digital SLR Cameras | 1 | July 12th 05 04:45 AM |
Kodak Perfect Touch Processing | Jeremy | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | October 28th 04 08:16 PM |
Buy film, not equipment. | Geoffrey S. Mendelson | In The Darkroom | 545 | October 24th 04 09:25 PM |
FS: Camera Collection | Jerry Dycus | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 0 | October 16th 03 02:30 PM |
FS: Camera Collection | Jerry Dycus | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | October 16th 03 02:30 PM |