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
  #11  
Old August 26th 05, 06:59 AM
MarkČ
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Neil Ellwood" wrote in message
news
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.


I love 73 year-olds who ride their bike...
....Seems a good way to someday be a 103-year-old to me.
My dad's almost 70, but he still likes to go to batting practice at the big
league park and dive for home-run balls in the stands... He's quite a
sight to behold.



  #12  
Old August 26th 05, 08:01 AM
David J Taylor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.


What happens in practice is that in poor lighting conditions, if you are
near the tele end of the zoom, you end up with an exposure of 1/15s with
an 85mm focal length. There are a number of cures for this - a tripod
(which both Don and I would rule out - I want to just be able to carry my
camera anywhere), increased sensitivity (which today means increased
noise) and two solutions which the manufacturers could provide - larger
aperture lenses (such as the constant f/2.8 zoom of the Panasonic FZ20 and
similar), or image stabilisation.

Unfortunately, the only two manufacturers of cameras with a 24mm
wide-angle (Nikon 8400 and Kodak 880) both fail their users by providing
neither a full aperture at the tele zoom end, nor image stabilisation.
Kodak missed a chance to be a market leader here.

David


  #13  
Old August 26th 05, 09:04 AM
Bernard Rother
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

MarkČ 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.
  #14  
Old August 26th 05, 10:53 AM
Ron Hunter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

David J Taylor wrote:
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.


What happens in practice is that in poor lighting conditions, if you are
near the tele end of the zoom, you end up with an exposure of 1/15s with
an 85mm focal length. There are a number of cures for this - a tripod
(which both Don and I would rule out - I want to just be able to carry my
camera anywhere), increased sensitivity (which today means increased
noise) and two solutions which the manufacturers could provide - larger
aperture lenses (such as the constant f/2.8 zoom of the Panasonic FZ20 and
similar), or image stabilisation.

Unfortunately, the only two manufacturers of cameras with a 24mm
wide-angle (Nikon 8400 and Kodak 880) both fail their users by providing
neither a full aperture at the tele zoom end, nor image stabilisation.
Kodak missed a chance to be a market leader here.

David


The trick is not to provide the IS, but to do it within the price target
point, and still not dispense with other, more commonly needed,
features. No one camera will satisfy the needs of every customer.


--
Ron Hunter
  #15  
Old August 26th 05, 11:58 AM
Larry Lynch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , says...
David J Taylor wrote:
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.


What happens in practice is that in poor lighting conditions, if you are
near the tele end of the zoom, you end up with an exposure of 1/15s with
an 85mm focal length. There are a number of cures for this - a tripod
(which both Don and I would rule out - I want to just be able to carry my
camera anywhere), increased sensitivity (which today means increased
noise) and two solutions which the manufacturers could provide - larger
aperture lenses (such as the constant f/2.8 zoom of the Panasonic FZ20 and
similar), or image stabilisation.

Unfortunately, the only two manufacturers of cameras with a 24mm
wide-angle (Nikon 8400 and Kodak 880) both fail their users by providing
neither a full aperture at the tele zoom end, nor image stabilisation.
Kodak missed a chance to be a market leader here.

David


The trick is not to provide the IS, but to do it within the price target
point, and still not dispense with other, more commonly needed,
features. No one camera will satisfy the needs of every customer.




I would seldom venture to correct you Ron, but I think "the trick" is
for the photographer to learn technique, and stabilize the camera.

I have been shooting for many years with lenses as long as 300 mm
without stabilization being supplied by the camera.

With or without a tripod, 300mm (and more) can be done without the
camera making up for vibration.

Methinks the public expecteth too much from IS to begin with.

I have a couple of cameras that are in the range of 38 to 380 mm
(equivalent) zoom (one of them is a Kodak) and none of them have IS
because they were built before it became popular (read that as cheap) in
the market.

I have only lost a half dozen frames out of hundreds shot due to motion
blur, and my hands are not particularly steady for a 60 year old guy.

My hands shake quite badly from time to time for no apparent reason
whatever. I just had to learn to do it the hard way, because I started
way back when IS wasnt available.

I heartily recommend to all who do a lot of "long lens" photography that
you take the time to learn to do without the IS even if you do have it.
It will make you a better photographer.

Would I buy a camera that has IS??? Probably, but not because it has IS.

I dont "shun" it, but I dont crave it either.

A NEED for IS is a sure sign you haven't practiced good technique unless
you go past about 400mm.

Of course this is opinion, and not meant to be a statement of FACT
except as an example of how I view the world.



--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
  #16  
Old August 26th 05, 12:05 PM
MarkČ
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Larry Lynch" wrote in message
.net...
In article , says...
David J Taylor wrote:
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.

What happens in practice is that in poor lighting conditions, if you
are
near the tele end of the zoom, you end up with an exposure of 1/15s
with
an 85mm focal length. There are a number of cures for this - a tripod
(which both Don and I would rule out - I want to just be able to carry
my
camera anywhere), increased sensitivity (which today means increased
noise) and two solutions which the manufacturers could provide - larger
aperture lenses (such as the constant f/2.8 zoom of the Panasonic FZ20
and
similar), or image stabilisation.

Unfortunately, the only two manufacturers of cameras with a 24mm
wide-angle (Nikon 8400 and Kodak 880) both fail their users by
providing
neither a full aperture at the tele zoom end, nor image stabilisation.
Kodak missed a chance to be a market leader here.

David


The trick is not to provide the IS, but to do it within the price target
point, and still not dispense with other, more commonly needed,
features. No one camera will satisfy the needs of every customer.




I would seldom venture to correct you Ron, but I think "the trick" is
for the photographer to learn technique, and stabilize the camera.


Well heck... Even if they DO have IS, it helps to use basic stabilizing
technique.


  #17  
Old August 26th 05, 12:12 PM
David J Taylor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Larry Lynch wrote:
[]
A NEED for IS is a sure sign you haven't practiced good technique
unless you go past about 400mm.

Of course this is opinion, and not meant to be a statement of FACT
except as an example of how I view the world.


My view is slightly different - IS allows me to do things I haven't been
able to before.

I have used 400mm and 500mm lenses in my film SLR days and have been able
to get good pictures with these lenses, but only under certain conditions
and probably only with a tripod or other support.

I now want a minimum photographic outfit and a tripod or monopod doesn't
make it into the kit I want to carry around. Therefore having IS
available extends the range of lenses I can use hand-held (at ISO 100 for
low noise) from the 135mm region to the 400mm region, and therefore
increases the scope of my photography generally.

Yes, if you have a tripod it's different. Yes, if you have higher ISO
available it's different.

David


  #18  
Old August 26th 05, 12:29 PM
Larry Lynch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default





I would seldom venture to correct you Ron, but I think "the trick" is
for the photographer to learn technique, and stabilize the camera.


Well heck... Even if they DO have IS, it helps to use basic stabilizing
technique.



Pretty much on point!

IS makes it too easy to "blow off" the basics of bracing and stance, and
using common objects to stabilize the shot.

If you dont learn these things, you stand a good chance of "blowing"
some good shots even if you do have IS, because IS is not the "be all"
and "end all" of long lens photography.
--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
  #19  
Old August 26th 05, 12:42 PM
Larry Lynch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , david-
lid says...
My view is slightly different - IS allows me to do things I haven't been
able to before.

I have used 400mm and 500mm lenses in my film SLR days and have been able
to get good pictures with these lenses, but only under certain conditions
and probably only with a tripod or other support.

I now want a minimum photographic outfit and a tripod or monopod doesn't
make it into the kit I want to carry around. Therefore having IS
available extends the range of lenses I can use hand-held (at ISO 100 for
low noise) from the 135mm region to the 400mm region, and therefore
increases the scope of my photography generally.

Yes, if you have a tripod it's different. Yes, if you have higher ISO
available it's different.

David





Actually your view seems about the same as mine. The only difference I
see in your post is you have used tripods, probably more than me. You
know technique, you took the time to learn it (or you had to if your
photography pre-dated IS).

I almost never bring one into the field to take wildlife or landscape
shots. I only use a tripod for portraiture.

As for higher ISO... most of my field photography is done with cameras
that only do well at ISO 100 or ISO 64.

I have been in the forest with a neophite photographer and heard him say
(while lining up a shot) "I wish I had a tripod".. at which point I
grabbed his arm and drew him to a nearby tree and showed him how to
brace his upper body to get the shot (and he did).

Generally, when out in the field, I find myself surrounded by tripods,
monopods, and braces. They are, however disguised as fences, trees,
rocks, car hoods (or bonnets), pick-up truck step bumpers, and more than
once, the rump of a sleeping cow.

Probably, if I inventory my life, the most often carried piece of
"bracing gear" that I carry is a "bean bag" that fits across the bottom
of my camera bag.. I dont know its weight, probably about a pound, but
Im used to carrying it.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
  #20  
Old August 26th 05, 01:06 PM
David J Taylor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Larry Lynch wrote:
[]
Generally, when out in the field, I find myself surrounded by tripods,
monopods, and braces. They are, however disguised as fences, trees,
rocks, car hoods (or bonnets), pick-up truck step bumpers, and more
than once, the rump of a sleeping cow.


Very much my philosophy as well - but even then it's nice to have the
extra stability afforded by IS.

Probably, if I inventory my life, the most often carried piece of
"bracing gear" that I carry is a "bean bag" that fits across the
bottom of my camera bag.. I dont know its weight, probably about a
pound, but Im used to carrying it.


For those longer exposures - say 1/4s or longer shutter opening time -
I'll use tissues or a cloth to protect the camera while it's braced aginst
a tree, railing or building.

But for when you /must/ use pure hand-held, IS is a great benefit.

David


 




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 11:10 AM.


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.