Kodak blows it

Don Wiss wrote:
But I want a camera with a wide angle and IS for low light. Tell me which
camera has that?

The new marvel from Ricoh has all that and mo It has a 28-200mm lens
+ Minolta-like AS, but unlike the slightly hefty A-series KMs this
Ricoh has *pocketable* size and weight (I kid you not). Other goodies
are full-press lag in line with the best DSLRs (less than 0.1 of a
second) and 1cm macro. More details he
http://www.ricoh.com/r_dc/caplio/r3/index.html

Prog.

On 13 Sep 2005 15:07:48 -0700, wrote:

Don Wiss wrote:
But I want a camera with a wide angle and IS for low light. Tell me which
camera has that?

The new marvel from Ricoh has all that and mo It has a 28-200mm lens
+ Minolta-like AS, but unlike the slightly hefty A-series KMs this
Ricoh has *pocketable* size and weight (I kid you not). Other goodies
are full-press lag in line with the best DSLRs (less than 0.1 of a
second) and 1cm macro. More details he
http://www.ricoh.com/r_dc/caplio/r3/index.html

But 28mm isn't vary wide angle. 24mm is what others consider wide. Plus no
view finder. A complete deal breaker IMO. After seeing no view finder I
stopped reading the page. (As for macro I plan to hang onto my Nikon 950
for whenever I need macro capability.)

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

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 19:10:09 -0400, Don Wiss wrote:

But 28mm isn't vary wide angle. 24mm is what others consider wide.
Plus no view finder. A complete deal breaker IMO. After seeing no
view finder I stopped reading the page. (As for macro I plan to hang
onto my Nikon 950 for whenever I need macro capability.)

In addition, the USA isn't one of Ricoh's markets.

On 2005-08-25 19:37:55 -0400, Don Wiss said:

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).

Geez and I use to suffer with F 3.5 lenses and 25 ASA film.. and that
speedy stuff ASA 64. Ccntankerous flash systems..... Somehow we made
all work. Work at it. You should be able to hold a point and shoot
at 140 with a shutter speed at 1/60 sec. Its all relative.
--
Jim

Don Wiss wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 22:18:00 -0400, Jim wrote:

Work at it. You should be able to hold a point and shoot
at 140 with a shutter speed at 1/60 sec. Its all relative.

Except if it is a cloudy day and you are shooting at 85mm it is 1/30
sec on the Nikon 8400. I was taking more store front pictures
yesterday afternoon. One I had to shot multiple times to be sure I
got a good one. Those were taking at 1/30 sec. One I shot once and it
is blurry. That one took at 1/48.2 sec.

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

Don,

Remember that the Nikon range have a BSS - best shot selector - function
which selects the sharpest images from a sequence of shots.

David

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.

"Bob Williams" wrote in message
news:WQG6f.90710$lq6.23959@fed1read01...



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

And very portable. I have one in my bag, all the time, but it fits in a
pocket so much better than a monopod...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com