Kodak 6490 vs. Minolta z2 and z3

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Christian Rosenberg Dahm, Oct 18, 2004.

  1. Hello

    I'm bying a new camera, and I am thinking of one of the above models.
    But I have read some very different reviews of the Kodak 6490. Some
    says it takes unsharp pictures, and some say it a great camera. Some
    reviews it gets really bad rating.
    Therefor I consider the Minolta z2, but I have seen its pictures and I
    dont like them... To much noise. Most reviews says it has an auto
    focus problem. But I like the video specs. The Z3 has the stabilizer
    and it should help a lot.
    The 6490 is also an older camera, does that have an effect on the
    overall quality?

    What is your oppinion, what is the best camera? I dont plan on taking
    movies that much, it is just "Nice to have" I do want the images to by
    clear and without to much noise, even indoor as I plan to take most of
    my pictures here. I also dont want the pictures to be shaky every
    other time I zoom....

    Kind regards

    Christian Dahm
     
    Christian Rosenberg Dahm, Oct 18, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Christian Rosenberg Dahm

    Larry Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > Hello
    >
    > I'm bying a new camera, and I am thinking of one of the above models.
    > But I have read some very different reviews of the Kodak 6490. Some
    > says it takes unsharp pictures, and some say it a great camera. Some
    > reviews it gets really bad rating.
    > Therefor I consider the Minolta z2, but I have seen its pictures and I
    > dont like them... To much noise. Most reviews says it has an auto
    > focus problem. But I like the video specs. The Z3 has the stabilizer
    > and it should help a lot.
    > The 6490 is also an older camera, does that have an effect on the
    > overall quality?
    >
    > What is your oppinion, what is the best camera? I dont plan on taking
    > movies that much, it is just "Nice to have" I do want the images to by
    > clear and without to much noise, even indoor as I plan to take most of
    > my pictures here. I also dont want the pictures to be shaky every
    > other time I zoom....
    >
    > Kind regards
    >
    > Christian Dahm
    >


    The Kodak does not have any image stabilization, but its not "Noisy".

    The choice should come down to this:

    If you can live with the compression level of the jpg files from the 6490,
    you will be happy as it does a wonderfull job with color and contrast.

    I have found the Kodak easy to hold steady for long periods when using the
    full zoom on the lens, but if you are going to do large (bigger than 5x7)
    prints, the jpg compression MIGHT show up in the final product if it has
    large areas of sky or sea (large ares of solid or similar color) as the jpg
    artifacts in those areas can sometimes be troublsome.

    Overall, I think the Kodak is a good camera, the only thing keeping it from
    being GREAT is the lack of compression options.



    --
    Larry Lynch
    Mystic, Ct.
     
    Larry, Oct 18, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Christian Rosenberg Dahm

    Robert Barr Guest

    Christian Rosenberg Dahm wrote:
    > Hello
    >
    > I'm bying a new camera, and I am thinking of one of the above models.
    > But I have read some very different reviews of the Kodak 6490.


    Nose around here for a while:

    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1011

    These aren't formal reviewers; these are just ordinary folks who (for
    the most part) are having a gas with their new Kodak cameras. You'll
    get a representative opinion from actual users.
     
    Robert Barr, Oct 18, 2004
    #3
  4. Christian Rosenberg Dahm

    ArtKramr Guest

    >Subject: Re: Kodak 6490 vs. Minolta z2 and z3
    >From: Larry et
    >Date: 10/18/2004 9:03 AM Pacific Standard Time
    >Message-id: <>
    >
    >In article <>,
    > says...
    >> Hello
    >>
    >> I'm bying a new camera, and I am thinking of one of the above models.
    >> But I have read some very different reviews of the Kodak 6490. Some
    >> says it takes unsharp pictures, and some say it a great camera. Some
    >> reviews it gets really bad rating.
    >> Therefor I consider the Minolta z2, but I have seen its pictures and I
    >> dont like them... To much noise. Most reviews says it has an auto
    >> focus problem. But I like the video specs. The Z3 has the stabilizer
    >> and it should help a lot.
    >> The 6490 is also an older camera, does that have an effect on the
    >> overall quality?
    >>
    >> What is your oppinion, what is the best camera? I dont plan on taking
    >> movies that much, it is just "Nice to have" I do want the images to by
    >> clear and without to much noise, even indoor as I plan to take most of
    >> my pictures here. I also dont want the pictures to be shaky every
    >> other time I zoom....
    >>
    >> Kind regards
    >>
    >> Christian Dahm
    >>

    >
    >The Kodak does not have any image stabilization, but its not "Noisy".
    >
    >The choice should come down to this:
    >
    >If you can live with the compression level of the jpg files from the 6490,
    >you will be happy as it does a wonderfull job with color and contrast.
    >
    >I have found the Kodak easy to hold steady for long periods when using the
    >full zoom on the lens, but if you are going to do large (bigger than 5x7)
    >prints, the jpg compression MIGHT show up in the final product if it has
    >large areas of sky or sea (large ares of solid or similar color) as the jpg
    >artifacts in those areas can sometimes be troublsome.
    >
    >Overall, I think the Kodak is a good camera, the only thing keeping it from
    >being GREAT is the lack of compression options.
    >
    >
    >
    >--
    >Larry Lynch
    >Mystic, Ct.
    >


    I love my 6490. I get fine 16X20's and the compression ratio is perfect
    producing compact files. Image quality is superb. Kodak did everything just
    right. Go for it.




    Arthur Kramer
    344th BG 494th BS
    England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
    Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
    http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
     
    ArtKramr, Oct 18, 2004
    #4
  5. Christian Rosenberg Dahm

    Larry Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > love my 6490. I get fine 16X20's and the compression ratio is perfect
    > producing compact files. Image quality is superb. Kodak did everything just
    > right. Go for it.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Arthur Kramer
    > 344th BG 494th BS
    > England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
    > Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
    > http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
    >
    >
    >


    I must admit, MOST of the pictures I get from mine are superior to some I get
    from more expensive gear, but there are the OCCAISIONAL shots that suffer
    from compression artifacting. To overlook this fault would be unfair to
    someone thinking about buying this camera.


    --
    Larry Lynch
    Mystic, Ct.
     
    Larry, Oct 18, 2004
    #5
  6. Christian Rosenberg Dahm

    Alan Meyer Guest

    "Christian Rosenberg Dahm" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hello
    >
    > I'm bying a new camera, and I am thinking of one of the above models.
    > But I have read some very different reviews of the Kodak 6490. Some
    > says it takes unsharp pictures, and some say it a great camera. Some
    > reviews it gets really bad rating.


    Have a look at http://www.steves-digicams.com He has reviews of
    the cameras and a number of sample photos from each. If you look
    at the samples, you'll be able to compare the quality from the different
    cameras.

    Personally, I think that all of the modern cameras take pretty good
    photos. For the most part, the differences between them aren't very
    visible to most people.

    ....
    > The 6490 is also an older camera, does that have an effect on the
    > overall quality?


    Kodak and all of the other manufacturers keep developing better
    products, partly as a result of feedback from the customers and
    partly as a result of new technology. So I think you have to say
    that the newer models are better. But a lot of the difference is not
    in perceived picture quality. Some of it may be in faster focussing,
    better performance in low light, more efficient power management,
    faster image processing, etc.

    On the other hand, when the new models come out, you can often
    get a better price on the old ones. If it meets your needs, the older
    one might be just fine.

    > What is your oppinion, what is the best camera? I dont plan on taking
    > movies that much, it is just "Nice to have" I do want the images to by
    > clear and without to much noise, even indoor as I plan to take most of
    > my pictures here. I also dont want the pictures to be shaky every
    > other time I zoom....


    It's a tough choice. I don't know which one is the best. When I consider
    buying a new camera my choices change every day. One has a great
    zoom, but another is tiny and fits in a pocket. One has many megapixels
    but another has more manual controls. One has a proprietary battery
    that might be expensive and hard to replace, but another uses an
    expensive memory card technology. And on and on.

    Whatever you wind up with, I hope you enjoy it.

    Alan
     
    Alan Meyer, Oct 18, 2004
    #6
  7. Christian Rosenberg Dahm

    Alf92 Guest

    Christian Rosenberg Dahm a exposé ceci :

    > Hello
    >
    > I'm bying a new camera, and I am thinking of one of the above models.
    > But I have read some very different reviews of the Kodak 6490. Some
    > says it takes unsharp pictures, and some say it a great camera. Some
    > reviews it gets really bad rating.
    > Therefor I consider the Minolta z2, but I have seen its pictures and I
    > dont like them... To much noise. Most reviews says it has an auto
    > focus problem. But I like the video specs. The Z3 has the stabilizer
    > and it should help a lot.
    > The 6490 is also an older camera, does that have an effect on the
    > overall quality?
    >
    > What is your oppinion, what is the best camera? I dont plan on taking
    > movies that much, it is just "Nice to have" I do want the images to by
    > clear and without to much noise, even indoor as I plan to take most of
    > my pictures here. I also dont want the pictures to be shaky every
    > other time I zoom....
    >
    > Kind regards
    >
    > Christian Dahm


    Kodak : good construction and pretty good photos.
    Minolta Z2 &Z3 : cheap construction but good feature for the price, poor
    quality photo.

    have you seen the Kyocera Finecam M410R ?
    very good in each points.
    --
    Alf92
    think before vote !
     
    Alf92, Oct 18, 2004
    #7
  8. Christian Rosenberg Dahm wrote:

    > Hello
    >
    > I'm bying a new camera, and I am thinking of one of the above models.
    > But I have read some very different reviews of the Kodak 6490. Some
    > says it takes unsharp pictures, and some say it a great camera. Some
    > reviews it gets really bad rating.
    > Therefor I consider the Minolta z2, but I have seen its pictures and I
    > dont like them... To much noise. Most reviews says it has an auto
    > focus problem. But I like the video specs. The Z3 has the stabilizer
    > and it should help a lot.
    > The 6490 is also an older camera, does that have an effect on the
    > overall quality?
    >
    > What is your oppinion, what is the best camera? I dont plan on taking
    > movies that much, it is just "Nice to have" I do want the images to by
    > clear and without to much noise, even indoor as I plan to take most of
    > my pictures here. I also dont want the pictures to be shaky every
    > other time I zoom....
    >
    > Kind regards
    >
    > Christian Dahm


    I have had a DX6490 for 11 months and I've got some stunning 8x10 prints.
    All my smaller prints also look fantastic.

    The level of JPEG compression is an issue that people often discuss, but I have
    not actually noticed any JPEG artificats in my prints so I guess it's not really
    a big deal.I have no way to know if more detail would be visible if the JPEG
    compression could be reduced.

    One important thing to consider is that noise is visible at ISO 200 and I find
    ISO 400 unusable because of excessive noise. I usually shoot at ISO 80, but
    there have been a couple of occasions where I've wanted to use ISO 200 or 400.
    So it's not a very flexible camera.

    I find the built-in flash is quite harsh, so i use an external flash and bounce
    off the ceiling - I usually only use flash indoors. The bounce flash photos are
    really really good. The lighting is very well balanced and I've got some great
    portraits of my baby daughter and wife.

    The big zoom is certainly a major plus, meaning the camera is very flexible if
    you're taking photos outside. You don't have to crop your photos later, losing
    valuable resolution, because you can just zoom in on the subject.


    --
    Ben Thomas
    Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
    relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither
    given nor endorsed by it.
     
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?BenOne=A9?=, Oct 18, 2004
    #8
  9. Christian Rosenberg Dahm

    Ron Baird Guest

    Greetings Christian,

    I can certainly understand your dilemma.

    Personally, when I make a decision about buying a camera or similar product,
    I weigh several things. Does the camera I am interested in do what I want
    now and offer technology I can grow into in the future. Will the results be
    what I want and meet the need of those I will share with but especially for
    me. Do I have the funds to get what I want.

    Once I have asked these questions and have sorted out the options, I always
    go to the store with media and take some pictures of the same scenes in the
    store noting the sequence in which I took them, then I return home to review
    the results. This way I get to try the cameras and see if I like the way it
    feels and if the controls are how I like them etc.

    After a review of the above and the resulting images I make my decision.
    Maybe this will help you.

    Of course, since I have access to Kodak cameras as I work there, I guess I
    have an inside track on what they can do and what kind of quality they have
    for my needs. Invariably, and not because of my job, I have always chosen
    Kodak. In this case, since it appears you are not too concerned about the
    cost, I would seriously consider the DX7590. It is an amazing camera for
    the money.

    Talk to you soon, Christian,

    Ron Baird
    Eastman Kodak Company




    "Christian Rosenberg Dahm" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hello
    >
    > I'm bying a new camera, and I am thinking of one of the above models.
    > But I have read some very different reviews of the Kodak 6490. Some
    > says it takes unsharp pictures, and some say it a great camera. Some
    > reviews it gets really bad rating.
    > Therefor I consider the Minolta z2, but I have seen its pictures and I
    > dont like them... To much noise. Most reviews says it has an auto
    > focus problem. But I like the video specs. The Z3 has the stabilizer
    > and it should help a lot.
    > The 6490 is also an older camera, does that have an effect on the
    > overall quality?
    >
    > What is your oppinion, what is the best camera? I dont plan on taking
    > movies that much, it is just "Nice to have" I do want the images to by
    > clear and without to much noise, even indoor as I plan to take most of
    > my pictures here. I also dont want the pictures to be shaky every
    > other time I zoom....
    >
    > Kind regards
    >
    > Christian Dahm
     
    Ron Baird, Oct 20, 2004
    #9
  10. Christian Rosenberg Dahm

    howard Guest

    6490 ZOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMM

    I have one and the ZOOM is great......

    go to photosig and look at photos by camera

    H
     
    howard, Oct 21, 2004
    #10
    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. Island Wind

    HP 945, KODAK 6490 or OLYMPUS 750?

    Island Wind, Sep 23, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    306
    Island Wind
    Sep 23, 2003
  2. Larry Caldwell

    Kodak 6490

    Larry Caldwell, Oct 5, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    882
    Ron Baird
    Oct 16, 2003
  3. Rudy Garcia

    Help with Kodak DX-6490

    Rudy Garcia, Oct 21, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    442
    Rudy Garcia
    Oct 23, 2003
  4. Jim Spencer

    Kodak 6490 Compression TEST

    Jim Spencer, Nov 12, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    645
    news.bellatlantic.net
    Dec 15, 2003
  5. zxcvar

    Kodak Dx6490 and Vivitar 6490 external flash

    zxcvar, Jul 25, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    692
    Ron Baird
    Jul 26, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page