Does *Anyone* Here Like Kodak Digital Cameras?

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 03:15:17 -0800, mutefan wrote:

I purchased and then canceled an order for a Kodak that sounded really
attractive to me. Folks here have advised certain priorities; other
reviewers on other sites as well. But when I have a choice between a
Kodak 7.1 MP with 12X optical zoom, IS, *and* the ability to record RAW
files, versus an exactly priced Canon at 6.1 (or Panasonic) with no
RAW, it would seem a no-brainer.

My first digital camera was a Kodak DC210+ - I LOVE that camera.
Resolution is only 1152x864 but it does a great job - I've printed 8x10
photos with it for publicity pictures at a community theatre. My most
recent digital camera is a Kodak P850 - bought refurb from the Kodak
online store for $250 plus $50 for a printer doc. I think I'm in love
again. I've not yet spent much time with it, but it seems to have
everything I could ever need and MUCH better organized that my previous
Minolta S414. I've started processing the raw files, and I can certainly
see the advantages.


Are Kodak cameras just the victim of elitism? Exactly how bad is the
noise-at-high-ISO issue, or is this a digital straw man you'd find with
other manufacturers of P&Ss? CNET said (about the Kodak P712), If you
want to spend this much money (or something to that affect), buy the
Canon PowerShot S3.

IMHO - I've evaluated a number of high zoom EVFs. I've found two makers
with enough resolution in the EVF to make me consider them. One was a
discontinued Minolta, the other is Kodak. The Kodak EVFs provide 237k
pixels in the EVF - certainly it could be better, but it is SO MUCH better
than everyone else's 110k pixels (or less) that it came down to which
Kodak model I would choose.


I've owned two Canons (and returned the Digital Rebel). My first
camera was a 4 MP Hewlett Packard. While the PowerShot A620 was a
magnificent camera when it decided not to shake--a *really* magnificent
camera--I find it hard to believe Kodak would invest their money into
creating one lemon after another.

Anyway, I Googled this group to see if I could find the source of the
anti-Kodak-itis, but I found nothing. So I'll just ask: Why the
anti-Kodak bias?

I think it's 'eliteism' - folks think they aren't cool if they don't have
the latest Nikon or Canon (actually I stopped buying Canon products
several years ago when it became apparent they had no support for Linux -
I now use Epson printers and scanners). Another factor could be that Kodak
no longer sells a branded DSLR.

I happen to think they are fine cameras - and I'd buy again from the
online store.

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 06:18:29 -0800, Randall Ainsworth wrote:

In article , Ron Hunter
wrote:

Yes, there is a distinct anti-Kodak Pro-Canon bias among posters here.
First because Kodak caters to the masses of photographers, rather than
the serious amateur, or professional (which includes many, if not most,
of the posters here). They consider Kodak beneath their notice.

They're not that great of cameras to begin with. And that stupid dock
thing is just...stupid. You've gotta drag that dock all over creation
to get the pictures out.

WRONG. The point is that the dock is a convenience. You can plug the
camera directly into the computer or use a USB card reader - just like any
other digital camera. My P850 also came with an external battery charger -
so, no, I don't need to take the dock with me. BTW the printer dock is
cool - it makes good pictures with a minimum of hassle.

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 12:07:22 +0000, David J Taylor wrote:

wrote:
[]
Anyway, I Googled this group to see if I could find the source of the
anti-Kodak-itis, but I found nothing. So I'll just ask: Why the
anti-Kodak bias?

Until recently, Kodak employed too much JPEG compression which ruined any
inherent quality they might have had. Perhaps that contributed, plus
their software wasn't all that great.

David

I don't agree with that assessment. The photos I got from my old DC210+
were smaller than photos from other similar resolution cameras, but it
always seemed to me that the detail was there.

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 08:32:30 -0800, Mr.Bolshoyhuy wrote:

wrote:

CNET said (about the Kodak P712), If you
want to spend this much money (or something to that affect), buy the
Canon PowerShot S3.

The only thing that the S3 has over the P712 is the rotating LCD.
Which ifcourse will be over used and damaged in 1 month.
The P712 has a flash hot shoe, thereby your pics will be much better.

Which will be overused and damaged in 1 month. How will a flash hot shoe
make your "pics" much better if you don't have a flash to put in the hot
shoe or don't shoot in situations that require flash?

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 17:11:49 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

The only thing that the S3 has over the P712 is the rotating LCD.
Which ifcourse will be over used and damaged in 1 month.

What makes you say that? Whilst I can't comment on Canon, the swivel LCD
on my Nikon 8400 has been fine for over 2 years now - certainly not
"damaged in one month".

If you have to ask what makes him say that you haven't been paying
attention to BS_huy's past trolls. It's the nature of the beast.

David J Taylor wrote:
Mr.Bolshoyhuy wrote:
[]
The only thing that the S3 has over the P712 is the rotating LCD.
Which ifcourse will be over used and damaged in 1 month.

What makes you say that? Whilst I can't comment on Canon, the swivel LCD
on my Nikon 8400 has been fine for over 2 years now - certainly not
"damaged in one month".

David


Huh. The swivel LCD (which I really really like...) on my old Powershot
A80 has worked fine for years. Maybe it's got something to do with
handling the camera like a camera, not a hammer... Wonder if the OP was
using it to drive nails. :-)


Jim

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 03:15:17 -0800, mutefan wrote:


Anyway, I Googled this group to see if I could find the source of the
anti-Kodak-itis, but I found nothing. So I'll just ask: Why the
anti-Kodak bias?

What anti-Kodak bias?

--
Neil
Reverse 'ra' and delete 'l'.

Neil Ellwood wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 03:15:17 -0800, mutefan wrote:


Anyway, I Googled this group to see if I could find the source of the
anti-Kodak-itis, but I found nothing. So I'll just ask: Why the
anti-Kodak bias?

What anti-Kodak bias?

--
Neil
Reverse 'ra' and delete 'l'.EZ Share 710 as a backup to my D200. It's quite a good camera for that purpose. The manual controls are a bit clumsy and, as others have noted, the software isn't fit to line a digital birdcage.
--
Gator Bait

My first digital was a KODAK 7330

( I swear, they market a new model every week )

Excellent P&S camera,
and a viewfinder for better framing, and bright-day viewing.

But the damn thing eats batteries.
Freshly-charged nimh batterys might get me 40 shots !
In time, it was more about batteries than taking pics.

I use a NIKON now, bu I do miss many of the KODAK features.


rj

Kind of like Apple and the iPod.

ljc


"RJ" wrote in message
...

My first digital was a KODAK 7330

( I swear, they market a new model every week )

Excellent P&S camera,
and a viewfinder for better framing, and bright-day viewing.

But the damn thing eats batteries.
Freshly-charged nimh batterys might get me 40 shots !
In time, it was more about batteries than taking pics.

I use a NIKON now, bu I do miss many of the KODAK features.


rj