Does Anyone Here Like Kodak Digital Cameras?

External Since: Jun 22, 2006 Posts: 94

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.

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.

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?

External Since: Nov 24, 2005 Posts: 2800

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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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?
>

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.

Now, re the matter of high noise, with high ISO. It is a function of the
sensor, and, basically, the smaller the sensor element for each pixel,
the higher will be the noise relative to the 'signal'. Since DSLRs have
larger sensors with more surface/pixel, they can produce photos with
lower noise at a comparable ISO than a P&S camera, Kodak, Canon, or
whatever.

I suggest you ignore the bias in the group, and make your own choices,
after all, you are the one who will pay the bill, and use the camera.

Does *Anyone* Here Like Kodak Digital Cameras?

Does Anyone Here Like Kodak Digital Cameras?