Are Kodak P850 better than Panasonic FZ5?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by tiresia2@hotmail.it, Sep 26, 2005.

  1. Guest

    dimension are the same,zoom 12 x also,but P850 have:

    Video 640x480
    Excellent lcd 2,5 with 230.000 pixels
    excellent evf with 230.000 pixels
    manual focus(?)
    raw
    ecc.

    I think;if site tests aren't much negative,i buy her....
    What do you think about....?
    , Sep 26, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. wrote:
    > dimension are the same,zoom 12 x also,but P850 have:
    >
    > Video 640x480
    > Excellent lcd 2,5 with 230.000 pixels
    > excellent evf with 230.000 pixels
    > manual focus(?)
    > raw
    > ecc.
    >
    > I think;if site tests aren't much negative,i buy her....
    > What do you think about....?


    Kodak cameras have a reputation for producing a poor JPEG image - perhaps
    too much compression? I would check image quality very carefully. Even
    Canon have not been able to produce a lens (on their S2) matching the
    quality of the Panasonic FZ5, so can Kodak?

    David
    David J Taylor, Sep 26, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Guest

    David J Taylor ha scritto:

    > wrote:
    > > dimension are the same,zoom 12 x also,but P850 have:
    > >
    > > Video 640x480
    > > Excellent lcd 2,5 with 230.000 pixels
    > > excellent evf with 230.000 pixels
    > > manual focus(?)
    > > raw
    > > ecc.
    > >
    > > I think;if site tests aren't much negative,i buy her....
    > > What do you think about....?

    >
    > Kodak cameras have a reputation for producing a poor JPEG image - perhaps
    > too much compression? I would check image quality very carefully. Even
    > Canon have not been able to produce a lens (on their S2) matching the
    > quality of the Panasonic FZ5, so can Kodak?
    >
    > David


    ...agree David.
    But for me ,a little bit more of noise or purple fringing (or a little
    less resolution),isn't a problem.
    Kodak also have 50 asa !!(pana 80,273 difference)
    i hope in a test....
    hi
    , Sep 26, 2005
    #3
  4. On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:00:55 GMT, David J Taylor <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote:
    > wrote:
    >> dimension are the same,zoom 12 x also,but P850 have:
    >>
    >> Video 640x480
    >> Excellent lcd 2,5 with 230.000 pixels
    >> excellent evf with 230.000 pixels
    >> manual focus(?)
    >> raw
    >> ecc.
    >>
    >> I think;if site tests aren't much negative,i buy her....
    >> What do you think about....?

    >
    > Kodak cameras have a reputation for producing a poor JPEG image - perhaps
    > too much compression? I would check image quality very carefully. Even
    > Canon have not been able to produce a lens (on their S2) matching the
    > quality of the Panasonic FZ5, so can Kodak?


    To be fair, the differences between the S2 and the FZ5 are pretty minor.
    Real, but minor. I have no idea about the Kodak, though. A quick look
    through a couple of the usual review sites didn't turn up any reviews of
    the P850. On paper (see Kodak's page at
    http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=7391&pq-locale=en_US )
    it looks pretty good.

    I'd ask other questions, like how quickly can the Kodak focus? How
    powerful is the built-in flash, and how long does it take to
    recharge? How good is its burst mode? How effective is its image
    stabilizer? How good is its noise reduction for low-light pictures?
    Which of these questions is important to ask depends on what
    kind of photos you want to take.

    -dms
    Daniel Silevitch, Sep 26, 2005
    #4
  5. Daniel Silevitch wrote:
    []
    > To be fair, the differences between the S2 and the FZ5 are pretty
    > minor.
    > Real, but minor.


    Agreed, unless movie resolution is a critical factor for someone.

    > I have no idea about the Kodak, though. A quick look
    > through a couple of the usual review sites didn't turn up any reviews
    > of
    > the P850.


    That's part of the problem - there are a lot of unanswered questions about
    that camera. The lack of reviews concerns me slightly - why no reviews?
    Some sites seems not to review cameras which might get less than a
    "Recommended" rating....

    David
    David J Taylor, Sep 26, 2005
    #5
  6. On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 14:53:13 GMT, David J Taylor <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote:
    > Daniel Silevitch wrote:
    > []
    >> To be fair, the differences between the S2 and the FZ5 are pretty
    >> minor.
    >> Real, but minor.

    >
    > Agreed, unless movie resolution is a critical factor for someone.
    >
    >> I have no idea about the Kodak, though. A quick look
    >> through a couple of the usual review sites didn't turn up any reviews
    >> of the P850.

    >
    > That's part of the problem - there are a lot of unanswered questions about
    > that camera. The lack of reviews concerns me slightly - why no reviews?
    > Some sites seems not to review cameras which might get less than a
    > "Recommended" rating....


    There are some reviews of the lower-spec Kodak superzoom (the Z740). Of
    course, that has a 10x (unstabilized) lens, vs the 12x of the P850, so
    extrapolating to the higher-end model probably isn't all that useful.
    The major complaint about the Z740 was the very slow data handling;
    before considering an 850, I'd want some assurance that it didn't suffer
    from the same ills.

    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/kodakz740/

    -dms
    Daniel Silevitch, Sep 26, 2005
    #6
  7. Guest

    I have had the Kodak P850 for two weeks now, it is my first digital
    camera. If you have any questions, or would like sample photos, let me
    know. If you would like to see the users manual to see details on the
    settings provided, you can look at it here:
    http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/publications/urg00422toc.jhtml?pq-path=7549

    Good Luck deciding,
    Joe



    Daniel Silevitch wrote:
    > On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 14:53:13 GMT, David J Taylor <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote:
    > > Daniel Silevitch wrote:
    > > []
    > >> To be fair, the differences between the S2 and the FZ5 are pretty
    > >> minor.
    > >> Real, but minor.

    > >
    > > Agreed, unless movie resolution is a critical factor for someone.
    > >
    > >> I have no idea about the Kodak, though. A quick look
    > >> through a couple of the usual review sites didn't turn up any reviews
    > >> of the P850.

    > >
    > > That's part of the problem - there are a lot of unanswered questions about
    > > that camera. The lack of reviews concerns me slightly - why no reviews?
    > > Some sites seems not to review cameras which might get less than a
    > > "Recommended" rating....

    >
    > There are some reviews of the lower-spec Kodak superzoom (the Z740). Of
    > course, that has a 10x (unstabilized) lens, vs the 12x of the P850, so
    > extrapolating to the higher-end model probably isn't all that useful.
    > The major complaint about the Z740 was the very slow data handling;
    > before considering an 850, I'd want some assurance that it didn't suffer
    > from the same ills.
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/kodakz740/
    >
    > -dms
    , Sep 26, 2005
    #7
  8. wrote:
    > I have had the Kodak P850 for two weeks now, it is my first digital
    > camera. If you have any questions, or would like sample photos, let
    > me know. If you would like to see the users manual to see details on
    > the settings provided, you can look at it here:
    > http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/publications/urg00422toc.jhtml?pq-path=7549
    >
    > Good Luck deciding,
    > Joe


    What made you choose the Kodak over the Panasonic FZ5 or Canon S2 IS?

    David
    David J Taylor, Sep 26, 2005
    #8
  9. On 26 Sep 2005 10:01:45 -0700, <> wrote:
    > Daniel Silevitch wrote:
    >> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 14:53:13 GMT, David J Taylor <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote:
    >> > Daniel Silevitch wrote:
    >> > []
    >> >> To be fair, the differences between the S2 and the FZ5 are pretty
    >> >> minor.
    >> >> Real, but minor.
    >> >
    >> > Agreed, unless movie resolution is a critical factor for someone.
    >> >
    >> >> I have no idea about the Kodak, though. A quick look
    >> >> through a couple of the usual review sites didn't turn up any reviews
    >> >> of the P850.
    >> >
    >> > That's part of the problem - there are a lot of unanswered questions about
    >> > that camera. The lack of reviews concerns me slightly - why no reviews?
    >> > Some sites seems not to review cameras which might get less than a
    >> > "Recommended" rating....

    >>
    >> There are some reviews of the lower-spec Kodak superzoom (the Z740). Of
    >> course, that has a 10x (unstabilized) lens, vs the 12x of the P850, so
    >> extrapolating to the higher-end model probably isn't all that useful.
    >> The major complaint about the Z740 was the very slow data handling;
    >> before considering an 850, I'd want some assurance that it didn't suffer
    >> from the same ills.
    >>
    >> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/kodakz740/

    >
    > I have had the Kodak P850 for two weeks now, it is my first digital
    > camera. If you have any questions, or would like sample photos, let me
    > know. If you would like to see the users manual to see details on the
    > settings provided, you can look at it here:
    > http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/publications/urg00422toc.jhtml?pq-path=7549
    >
    > Good Luck deciding,


    I was perhaps a bit unclear. I'm not in the market for such a camera
    myself; I bought an FZ5 some months ago and am quite happy with it. I
    was speaking hypothetically, listing the questions and concerns I'd have
    if I were shopping today.

    What is your general sense of the camera? If you had to repeat the
    buying decision, would you still opt for the P850, or switch to one of
    the competing models like the FZ5 or the S2 IS?

    -dms
    Daniel Silevitch, Sep 26, 2005
    #9
  10. Ron Hunter Guest

    David J Taylor wrote:
    > Daniel Silevitch wrote:
    > []
    >> To be fair, the differences between the S2 and the FZ5 are pretty
    >> minor.
    >> Real, but minor.

    >
    > Agreed, unless movie resolution is a critical factor for someone.
    >
    >> I have no idea about the Kodak, though. A quick look
    >> through a couple of the usual review sites didn't turn up any reviews
    >> of
    >> the P850.

    >
    > That's part of the problem - there are a lot of unanswered questions about
    > that camera. The lack of reviews concerns me slightly - why no reviews?
    > Some sites seems not to review cameras which might get less than a
    > "Recommended" rating....
    >
    > David
    >
    >

    Full specs are on the Kodak site. Since the camera was announced only
    on Aug 2, it probably hasn't become available for testing yet.
    If it lives up to the specs, it should be a real winner.


    --
    Ron Hunter
    Ron Hunter, Sep 27, 2005
    #10
  11. On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 20:05:24 -0500, Ron Hunter <> wrote:
    > David J Taylor wrote:
    >>
    >> That's part of the problem - there are a lot of unanswered questions about
    >> that camera. The lack of reviews concerns me slightly - why no reviews?
    >> Some sites seems not to review cameras which might get less than a
    >> "Recommended" rating....
    >>

    > Full specs are on the Kodak site. Since the camera was announced only
    > on Aug 2, it probably hasn't become available for testing yet.
    > If it lives up to the specs, it should be a real winner.


    It's available now; B&H, for one, has it in stock. I assume that reviews
    should start showing up any time now. Reading through the specs, it
    looks like a very nice camera (though without a thorough test, it's hard
    to be sure). A couple of possible minuses that I noticed going through
    the spec sheet:

    - Stabilizer. The one blurb I saw about the stabilizer only claims two
    stops of advantage; Canon and Panasonic get three or more stops worth
    from their stabilizers. Could be a more conservative marketing division,
    could be a real difference. That's definitely something to check in a
    real review, since a good stabilizer makes a big difference in this
    class of camera.

    - Speed. Shot-to-shot time is given as a bit under 2 seconds, which is
    somewhat on the slow speed.

    - Weight. At 400 g, it's about 1/3 heavier than the FZ5 (both weights
    w/o battery).

    I'm nit-picking here, of course. As I said above, the specs indicate
    that this is a very good camera. To say anything more would need a real
    review. Going through the Kodak forum on dpreview.com, I found a few
    threads giving initial user reports:

    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1011&thread=15124214
    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1011&thread=15144399
    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1011&thread=15144061

    -dms
    Daniel Silevitch, Sep 27, 2005
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. clint

    Kodak P850

    clint, Sep 29, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    626
    KennyJr
    Oct 1, 2005
  2. KennyJr

    Kodak P850 RAW files.

    KennyJr, Oct 16, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    436
    KennyJr
    Oct 17, 2005
  3. Recommended External Flash for Kodak P850

    , Nov 15, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    827
    Ron Baird
    Jan 6, 2006
  4. Nemo

    Kodak P850 and QuickTime

    Nemo, Jan 14, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    804
  5. dh@.
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    460
    PTravel
    Aug 28, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page