A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital ZLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Kodak blows it



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 26th 05, 12:37 AM
Don Wiss
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old August 26th 05, 02:13 AM
Cardamon Dave
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old August 26th 05, 02:47 AM
Daniel Silevitch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old August 26th 05, 02:55 AM
Ron Hunter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old August 26th 05, 03:16 AM
Don Wiss
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old August 26th 05, 03:38 AM
Don Wiss
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old August 26th 05, 03:53 AM
wavelength
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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  
Old August 26th 05, 05:05 AM
MarkČ
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old August 26th 05, 06:39 AM
MarkČ
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old August 26th 05, 06:50 AM
Neil Ellwood
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.