Does *Anyone* Here Like Kodak Digital Cameras?

John Turco wrote:
> mutefan RemoveThis @yahoo.com wrote:
>> 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.
>
>
> 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 RemoveThis @concentric.net>

I often use PSE3 to stitch together pictures I take with my DX6440. As
long as I am careful with taking the pictures, it works very well.
The a panorama stitch mode does is fix the focus, aperture, and shutter
speed, and display a mark to judge overlap. I can manage all those
myself. I got some really good shots on a recent cruise.

mutefan.RemoveThis@yahoo.com 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?
>
The anti-Kodak bias is purely elite-ism at it's worst, and has
absolutely nothing to do with image quality. Canon could release a
steaming heap of dog turd with their name on it, and people here would
still buy it and say how much better it is than everything else.
Actually Canon have released a steaming dog turd - they called it the
S2IS. I'm unfortunately the owner of one of these, and wish I wasn't.
While it's big zoom, IS and excellent battery life are good, overall it
just isn't a patch on the previous Kodaks that I've had. The S2 exhibits
less clarity, more noise, less dynamic range (all landscapes have white
sky, unless you underexpose), hopelessly inaccurate auto white balance,
less accurate colours in general, slower focussing, less accurate
focussing, and waaay too slow to charge the flash (90 second recycle
time with fresh NiMH batteries). Even my 6 year old 2MP Kodak DC3400
beats the Canon hands down in almost every aspect of image quality. The
detail in the 2MP images is almost the same as the detail in the 5MP
canon shots. All in all the Canon is very disappointing. On top of it
all, the canon has about a dozen hot spots on the sensor, which show up
as brightly coloured dots on every single photograph. All the above
makes it sound faulty doesn't it? - well it's been to Canon 3 times so
far - the first time they did something which seemed to make it's
metering a little bit better (only have to give it 1 stop under to stop
skies being burnt out white now, used to need 2 stops under). The
other 2 times they have returned it saying that it is "within
specification" - yep even with a dozen hot spots it is "within
specification". I can't see myself buying another Canon in a hurry.