Does *Anyone* Here Like Kodak Digital Cameras?

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

> mute....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com 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)
 >> Stay informed about: Does *Anyone* Here Like Kodak Digital Cameras? 

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>
 >> Stay informed about: Does *Anyone* Here Like Kodak Digital Cameras? 

Kind of like Apple and the iPod.

ljc


"<RJ>" <baranick.TakeThisOut@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:i1pdq2l53l76ov701dj1k80q5g0cj0v472@4ax.com...
>
> 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>
 >> Stay informed about: Does *Anyone* Here Like Kodak Digital Cameras? 

Randall Ainsworth wrote:
> In article <CfGdnWdDWICKoDvYnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d RemoveThis @giganews.com>, Ron Hunter
> <rphunter RemoveThis @charter.net> 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.

IGNORANT ANSWER.
If the dock idea is so stupid, WHY don't you rag on Panasonic for using it?
One doesn't have to drag a dock around. I carry a tiny card reader
around in my laptop bag and use it to read the SD card.

This kind of an answer is exactly what the OP observed about anti-Kodak
bias.
 >> Stay informed about: Does *Anyone* Here Like Kodak Digital Cameras? 

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
>
>
Such LCDs may be exposed to more risk due to their 'sticking out', but
reasonable care should prevent damage. As the the durability of the
actual swivel contacts, etc., I suspect it is less durable than ones
that don't rotate, but the advantages probably outweigh the durability
aspect.
 >> Stay informed about: Does *Anyone* Here Like Kodak Digital Cameras? 

ray wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 12:07:22 +0000, David J Taylor wrote:
>
>> mutefan.RemoveThis@yahoo.com 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.
>

You don't take many pictures of grass and trees, do you? For most
things, it is just fine, but for that kind of subject matter, it stinks.
This is my most significant complaint about Kodak's cameras, at least
the ones on the low end of the cost scale.
They need to wake up and notice that 1GB SD cards are selling for under
$20 and back off on the overagressive compression. At least allow the
user to set his own compression level.
 >> Stay informed about: Does *Anyone* Here Like Kodak Digital Cameras? 

On Jan 11, 8:35 am, Ron Hunter <rphun....RemoveThis@charter.net> wrote:

> 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.

Of course I understand the difference between DSLR and P&S sensors.
Magic intervened in the form of my Identity Fraud unit detecting a
false expiration date, and my order for the Canon S710 wouldn't
proceed. Now I'm thinking of getting the Kodak P712 after all. I want
the ability to process RAW files.

But for all the dozens of replies this post has gotten, no one has
really addressed the issue of what digital bees in virtual bonnets a
photographer (particularly a landscape photographer) might find with
Kodaks. I figure I could compensate for noise at high ISOs by doing
something at lower ISOs with the aperture and/or compensation.
 >> Stay informed about: Does *Anyone* Here Like Kodak Digital Cameras? 

Ron Hunter wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
> Such LCDs may be exposed to more risk due to their 'sticking out', but
> reasonable care should prevent damage. As the the durability of the
> actual swivel contacts, etc., I suspect it is less durable than ones
> that don't rotate, but the advantages probably outweigh the durability
> aspect.

So if you don't want to risk the LCD being damaged, don't swivel it! The
LCD I mentioned can be made not to protrode at all in normal use.

It is, I think, not a valid reason to choose one camera over another
simply because it does /not/ have a swivel LCD, which appears to have been
what Mr.Bolshoyhuy was suggesting.

A spurious and deliberately misleading suggestion, I would proffer.

David
 >> Stay informed about: Does *Anyone* Here Like Kodak Digital Cameras? 

David J Taylor wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>> Such LCDs may be exposed to more risk due to their 'sticking out', but
>> reasonable care should prevent damage. As the the durability of the
>> actual swivel contacts, etc., I suspect it is less durable than ones
>> that don't rotate, but the advantages probably outweigh the durability
>> aspect.
>
> So if you don't want to risk the LCD being damaged, don't swivel it! The
> LCD I mentioned can be made not to protrode at all in normal use.
>
> It is, I think, not a valid reason to choose one camera over another
> simply because it does /not/ have a swivel LCD, which appears to have been
> what Mr.Bolshoyhuy was suggesting.
>
> A spurious and deliberately misleading suggestion, I would proffer.
>
> David
>
>
IF a person has as his main use for the camera that of closeup
photography, the tilt LCD is well worth the investment. For other uses,
I much prefer a viewfinder.
 >> Stay informed about: Does *Anyone* Here Like Kodak Digital Cameras? 

Ron Hunter wrote:
[]
> IF a person has as his main use for the camera that of closeup
> photography, the tilt LCD is well worth the investment. For other
> uses, I much prefer a viewfinder.

About the same here. 90% or more of the time I use the EVF, about 10% the
swivel LCD, mostly for tripod work.

David
 >> Stay informed about: Does *Anyone* Here Like Kodak Digital Cameras? 

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

<edited, for brevity>

> > 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.


Hello, Ray:

Very well put!


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur.RemoveThis@concentric.net>
 >> Stay informed about: Does *Anyone* Here Like Kodak Digital Cameras? 

Ron Hunter wrote:
>
> Randall Ainsworth wrote:
> > In article <CfGdnWdDWICKoDvYnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d DeleteThis @giganews.com>, Ron Hunter
> > <rphunter DeleteThis @charter.net> 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.
>
> IGNORANT ANSWER.
> If the dock idea is so stupid, WHY don't you rag on Panasonic for using it?
> One doesn't have to drag a dock around. I carry a tiny card reader
> around in my laptop bag and use it to read the SD card.
>
> This kind of an answer is exactly what the OP observed about anti-Kodak
> bias.


Hello, Ron:

Randall Ainsworth is a notorious Windows-whacker, so...it's no
shock that he's added Kodak-bashing, to his impressive inventory
of trolls.


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur DeleteThis @concentric.net>
 >> Stay informed about: Does *Anyone* Here Like Kodak Digital Cameras? 

mutefan.DeleteThis@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> On Jan 11, 8:35 am, Ron Hunter <rphun....DeleteThis@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Of course I understand the difference between DSLR and P&S sensors.
> Magic intervened in the form of my Identity Fraud unit detecting a
> false expiration date, and my order for the Canon S710 wouldn't
> proceed. Now I'm thinking of getting the Kodak P712 after all. I want
> the ability to process RAW files.
>
> But for all the dozens of replies this post has gotten, no one has
> really addressed the issue of what digital bees in virtual bonnets a
> photographer (particularly a landscape photographer) might find with
> Kodaks. I figure I could compensate for noise at high ISOs by doing
> something at lower ISOs with the aperture and/or compensation.


Hello, mutefan:

The P712 contains a "Panorama stitch mode," which you may find handy,
concerning landscapes.

Of course, you could merely choose to use third-party software, for
such a purpose, instead; in that case, the older (but similar) Kodak
P850 is currently a much better bargain, in my opinion.

Good luck!


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur.DeleteThis@concentric.net>
 >> Stay informed about: Does *Anyone* Here Like Kodak Digital Cameras?