Kodak Announces the World's Smallest Ultra-Wide-Angle Zoom Digital Camera

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by newcamz.blogspot.com, Aug 8, 2006.

  1. "Kodak has announced today a handful of new EasyShare cameras. The 7.0
    megapixel EasyShare V705 Dual Lens and the 8 megapixel EasyShare C875
    both feature a 5x all glass Schneider-Kreuznach optical zoom lens and a
    2.5-inch LCD and the V705 also sports an additional ultra wide 23mm
    lens. Kodak has also announced two entry level cameras; the C743 and
    C433."

    http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06080803kodakv705c875.asp#press

    Cheers!
    http://newcamz.blogspot.com
    newcamz.blogspot.com, Aug 8, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. newcamz.blogspot.com

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Re: Kodak Announces the World's Smallest Ultra-Wide-Angle Zoom DigitalCamera

    newcamz.blogspot.com wrote:
    > "Kodak has announced today a handful of new EasyShare cameras. The 7.0
    > megapixel EasyShare V705 Dual Lens and the 8 megapixel EasyShare C875
    > both feature a 5x all glass Schneider-Kreuznach optical zoom lens and a
    > 2.5-inch LCD and the V705 also sports an additional ultra wide 23mm
    > lens. Kodak has also announced two entry level cameras; the C743 and
    > C433."
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06080803kodakv705c875.asp#press
    >
    > Cheers!
    > http://newcamz.blogspot.com
    >


    These cameras lack one essential (for me) feature. NO viewfinder, no
    buy. It's that simple.
    While they have great statistics, the lack of this basic feature removes
    them from consideration.
    Ron Hunter, Aug 9, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. newcamz.blogspot.com

    Bucky Guest

    Ron Hunter wrote:
    > These cameras lack one essential (for me) feature. NO viewfinder, no
    > buy. It's that simple.
    > While they have great statistics, the lack of this basic feature removes
    > them from consideration.


    The smallest cameras don't have viewfinders, takes up too much space.
    Bucky, Aug 9, 2006
    #3
  4. newcamz.blogspot.com

    Hebee Jeebes Guest

    View finders only have one small advantage they are easy to use in bright
    light. Beyond that they add nothing but size and weight to a camera. The
    Kodak V610 is a wonderful camera considering its size, zoom range and image
    stabilization.

    R


    "Ron Hunter" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > newcamz.blogspot.com wrote:
    >> "Kodak has announced today a handful of new EasyShare cameras. The 7.0
    >> megapixel EasyShare V705 Dual Lens and the 8 megapixel EasyShare C875
    >> both feature a 5x all glass Schneider-Kreuznach optical zoom lens and a
    >> 2.5-inch LCD and the V705 also sports an additional ultra wide 23mm
    >> lens. Kodak has also announced two entry level cameras; the C743 and
    >> C433."
    >>
    >> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06080803kodakv705c875.asp#press
    >>
    >> Cheers!
    >> http://newcamz.blogspot.com
    >>

    >
    > These cameras lack one essential (for me) feature. NO viewfinder, no buy.
    > It's that simple.
    > While they have great statistics, the lack of this basic feature removes
    > them from consideration.
    Hebee Jeebes, Aug 9, 2006
    #4
  5. newcamz.blogspot.com

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Re: Kodak Announces the World's Smallest Ultra-Wide-Angle Zoom DigitalCamera

    Bucky wrote:
    > Ron Hunter wrote:
    >> These cameras lack one essential (for me) feature. NO viewfinder, no
    >> buy. It's that simple.
    >> While they have great statistics, the lack of this basic feature removes
    >> them from consideration.

    >
    > The smallest cameras don't have viewfinders, takes up too much space.
    >

    That's like saying a window takes up too much space on an automobile.
    Some things are just WORTH the space.
    Ron Hunter, Aug 9, 2006
    #5
  6. newcamz.blogspot.com

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Re: Kodak Announces the World's Smallest Ultra-Wide-Angle Zoom DigitalCamera

    Hebee Jeebes wrote:
    > View finders only have one small advantage they are easy to use in bright
    > light. Beyond that they add nothing but size and weight to a camera. The
    > Kodak V610 is a wonderful camera considering its size, zoom range and image
    > stabilization.
    >
    > R
    >
    >


    As I said, the features/specs are great, but without a viewfinder,
    preferably optical, I am NOT a potential customer. Some things are just
    essential.
    I wouldn't buy a car without a windshield either...
    Ron Hunter, Aug 9, 2006
    #6
  7. newcamz.blogspot.com

    Freda Guest

    "Ron Hunter" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hebee Jeebes wrote:
    >> View finders only have one small advantage they are easy to use in bright
    >> light. Beyond that they add nothing but size and weight to a camera. The
    >> Kodak V610 is a wonderful camera considering its size, zoom range and
    >> image stabilization.
    >>
    >> R
    >>

    >
    > As I said, the features/specs are great, but without a viewfinder,
    > preferably optical, I am NOT a potential customer. Some things are just
    > essential.
    > I wouldn't buy a car without a windshield either...
    >
    >

    Any camera without an optical viewfinder is only really suitable for
    snapshot type photography. Not to mention that the LCD is the biggest drain
    on the battery, so having to rely on it all the time for framing and taking
    pictures is going to have a major hit on battery life.
    Freda, Aug 9, 2006
    #7
  8. newcamz.blogspot.com

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 03:18:57 -0500, Ron Hunter <>
    wrote:

    >Bucky wrote:
    >> Ron Hunter wrote:
    >>> These cameras lack one essential (for me) feature. NO viewfinder, no
    >>> buy. It's that simple.
    >>> While they have great statistics, the lack of this basic feature removes
    >>> them from consideration.

    >>
    >> The smallest cameras don't have viewfinders, takes up too much space.
    >>

    >That's like saying a window takes up too much space on an automobile.
    >Some things are just WORTH the space to me.


    I fixed it for you.
    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
    Bill Funk, Aug 9, 2006
    #8
  9. newcamz.blogspot.com

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 10:47:26 +0100, "Freda" <>
    wrote:

    >"Ron Hunter" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> Hebee Jeebes wrote:
    >>> View finders only have one small advantage they are easy to use in bright
    >>> light. Beyond that they add nothing but size and weight to a camera. The
    >>> Kodak V610 is a wonderful camera considering its size, zoom range and
    >>> image stabilization.
    >>>
    >>> R
    >>>

    >>
    >> As I said, the features/specs are great, but without a viewfinder,
    >> preferably optical, I am NOT a potential customer. Some things are just
    >> essential.
    >> I wouldn't buy a car without a windshield either...
    >>
    >>

    >Any camera without an optical viewfinder is only really suitable for
    >snapshot type photography. Not to mention that the LCD is the biggest drain
    >on the battery, so having to rely on it all the time for framing and taking
    >pictures is going to have a major hit on battery life.
    >

    Compared with earlier P&S cameras I've had, I've not found that to be
    so for my FX01.
    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
    Bill Funk, Aug 9, 2006
    #9
  10. newcamz.blogspot.com

    SMS Guest

    Re: Kodak Announces the World's Smallest Ultra-Wide-Angle Zoom DigitalCamera

    newcamz.blogspot.com wrote:
    > "Kodak has announced today a handful of new EasyShare cameras. The 7.0
    > megapixel EasyShare V705 Dual Lens and the 8 megapixel EasyShare C875
    > both feature a 5x all glass Schneider-Kreuznach optical zoom lens and a
    > 2.5-inch LCD and the V705 also sports an additional ultra wide 23mm
    > lens. Kodak has also announced two entry level cameras; the C743 and
    > C433."


    The wide-angle model is interesting, but it lacks an optical view-finder
    which is a no-compromise feature on all but the lowest end cameras.
    SMS, Aug 9, 2006
    #10
  11. newcamz.blogspot.com

    Bucky Guest

    Ron Hunter wrote:
    > That's like saying a window takes up too much space on an automobile.


    Not really. If you want to use the analogy of a car windshield, that
    would be equivalent to not having a viewfinder *nor* LCD screen. Not
    having a viewfinder is more like a compact car not having a full size
    trunk.

    I understand if you absolutely must have a viewfinder. But the reality
    is that all the ultracompacts (the slim designs) these days are
    ditching the viewfinder. So if you require a viewfinder, you have to
    get a compact size or larger.

    http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06080801casioexs770.asp
    http://www.dpreview.com/news/0605/06053001fujiz3.asp
    http://www.dpreview.com/news/0605/06052201ricohr40.asp
    http://www.dpreview.com/news/0602/06021503pentaxw10.asp
    http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=145&modelid=12956
    Bucky, Aug 9, 2006
    #11
  12. newcamz.blogspot.com

    Hebee Jeebes Guest

    That is your opinion and I don't think your in the majority. Things change
    either go with the flow or get left behind.

    R


    "Ron Hunter" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Bucky wrote:
    >> Ron Hunter wrote:
    >>> These cameras lack one essential (for me) feature. NO viewfinder, no
    >>> buy. It's that simple.
    >>> While they have great statistics, the lack of this basic feature removes
    >>> them from consideration.

    >>
    >> The smallest cameras don't have viewfinders, takes up too much space.
    >>

    > That's like saying a window takes up too much space on an automobile. Some
    > things are just WORTH the space.
    Hebee Jeebes, Aug 9, 2006
    #12
  13. newcamz.blogspot.com

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Re: Kodak Announces the World's Smallest Ultra-Wide-Angle Zoom DigitalCamera

    Freda wrote:
    > "Ron Hunter" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Hebee Jeebes wrote:
    >>> View finders only have one small advantage they are easy to use in bright
    >>> light. Beyond that they add nothing but size and weight to a camera. The
    >>> Kodak V610 is a wonderful camera considering its size, zoom range and
    >>> image stabilization.
    >>>
    >>> R
    >>>

    >> As I said, the features/specs are great, but without a viewfinder,
    >> preferably optical, I am NOT a potential customer. Some things are just
    >> essential.
    >> I wouldn't buy a car without a windshield either...
    >>
    >>

    > Any camera without an optical viewfinder is only really suitable for
    > snapshot type photography. Not to mention that the LCD is the biggest drain
    > on the battery, so having to rely on it all the time for framing and taking
    > pictures is going to have a major hit on battery life.
    >
    >

    A review site (imaging resource?) tests the V610 at 135 shots on a
    charge. This probably due to the constant usage of the LCD for picture
    framing. Another reason to have a viewfinder (optical).
    Ron Hunter, Aug 9, 2006
    #13
  14. newcamz.blogspot.com

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Re: Kodak Announces the World's Smallest Ultra-Wide-Angle Zoom DigitalCamera

    Bucky wrote:
    > Ron Hunter wrote:
    >> That's like saying a window takes up too much space on an automobile.

    >
    > Not really. If you want to use the analogy of a car windshield, that
    > would be equivalent to not having a viewfinder *nor* LCD screen. Not
    > having a viewfinder is more like a compact car not having a full size
    > trunk.
    >
    > I understand if you absolutely must have a viewfinder. But the reality
    > is that all the ultracompacts (the slim designs) these days are
    > ditching the viewfinder. So if you require a viewfinder, you have to
    > get a compact size or larger.
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06080801casioexs770.asp
    > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0605/06053001fujiz3.asp
    > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0605/06052201ricohr40.asp
    > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0602/06021503pentaxw10.asp
    > http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=145&modelid=12956
    >

    When they ditch the viewfinder, they ditch any chance I will buy their
    camera. I don't care what the tradeoffs are, or how sophisticated the
    camera, I will NOT look like an amateur dork with my camera held at the
    end of my extended arms. I am much too old and unsteady to get usable
    pictures that way.
    Ron Hunter, Aug 9, 2006
    #14
  15. newcamz.blogspot.com

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Re: Kodak Announces the World's Smallest Ultra-Wide-Angle Zoom DigitalCamera

    Hebee Jeebes wrote:
    > That is your opinion and I don't think your in the majority. Things change
    > either go with the flow or get left behind.
    >
    > R
    >
    >
    > "Ron Hunter" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Bucky wrote:
    >>> Ron Hunter wrote:
    >>>> These cameras lack one essential (for me) feature. NO viewfinder, no
    >>>> buy. It's that simple.
    >>>> While they have great statistics, the lack of this basic feature removes
    >>>> them from consideration.
    >>> The smallest cameras don't have viewfinders, takes up too much space.
    >>>

    >> That's like saying a window takes up too much space on an automobile. Some
    >> things are just WORTH the space.

    >
    >

    When they stop putting viewfinders on DSLRs, then I will listen. This
    is a sop to the unsophisticated people who think the LCD is the way to
    frame a shot. For those here who complain that the quality of pictures
    taken with digital cameras is deteriorating, this is music to their
    ears, because it makes them RIGHT.
    Ron Hunter, Aug 9, 2006
    #15
  16. newcamz.blogspot.com

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 15:21:01 -0500, Ron Hunter <>
    wrote:

    >When they ditch the viewfinder, they ditch any chance I will buy their
    >camera.


    That's OK.
    When auto manufacturers make a compact car, they ditch any chance I
    will buy it. :)
    >I don't care what the tradeoffs are, or how sophisticated the
    >camera, I will NOT look like an amateur dork with my camera held at the
    >end of my extended arms. I am much too old and unsteady to get usable
    >pictures that way.


    Having a physical limitation is one thing; being afraid of how others
    might see you is another thing entirely.
    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
    Bill Funk, Aug 9, 2006
    #16
  17. newcamz.blogspot.com

    SMS Guest

    Re: Kodak Announces the World's Smallest Ultra-Wide-Angle Zoom DigitalCamera

    Ron Hunter wrote:

    > When they stop putting viewfinders on DSLRs, then I will listen. This
    > is a sop to the unsophisticated people who think the LCD is the way to
    > frame a shot.


    I guess fortunately for the manufacturers, the biggest market for the
    low-end point and shoot cameras is unsophisticated people (at least
    unsophisticated in terms of photography).

    > For those here who complain that the quality of pictures
    > taken with digital cameras is deteriorating, this is music to their
    > ears, because it makes them RIGHT.


    Yep.
    SMS, Aug 10, 2006
    #17
  18. newcamz.blogspot.com

    SMS Guest

    Re: Kodak Announces the World's Smallest Ultra-Wide-Angle Zoom DigitalCamera

    Bucky wrote:
    > Ron Hunter wrote:
    >> That's like saying a window takes up too much space on an automobile.

    >
    > Not really. If you want to use the analogy of a car windshield, that
    > would be equivalent to not having a viewfinder *nor* LCD screen. Not
    > having a viewfinder is more like a compact car not having a full size
    > trunk.
    >
    > I understand if you absolutely must have a viewfinder. But the reality
    > is that all the ultracompacts (the slim designs) these days are
    > ditching the viewfinder. So if you require a viewfinder, you have to
    > get a compact size or larger.


    Not true. The Canon Digital Elph series has optical viewfinders on most
    of the models.

    SD430, SD550, SD600, SD700 IS: Yes
    SD630: No
    SMS, Aug 10, 2006
    #18
  19. newcamz.blogspot.com

    Roy G Guest

    "Bill Funk" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 10:47:26 +0100, "Freda" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>"Ron Hunter" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>> Hebee Jeebes wrote:
    >>>> View finders only have one small advantage they are easy to use in
    >>>> bright
    >>>> light. Beyond that they add nothing but size and weight to a camera.
    >>>> The
    >>>> Kodak V610 is a wonderful camera considering its size, zoom range and
    >>>> image stabilization.
    >>>>
    >>>> R
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> As I said, the features/specs are great, but without a viewfinder,
    >>> preferably optical, I am NOT a potential customer. Some things are just
    >>> essential.
    >>> I wouldn't buy a car without a windshield either...
    >>>
    >>>

    >>Any camera without an optical viewfinder is only really suitable for
    >>snapshot type photography. Not to mention that the LCD is the biggest
    >>drain
    >>on the battery, so having to rely on it all the time for framing and
    >>taking
    >>pictures is going to have a major hit on battery life.
    >>

    > Compared with earlier P&S cameras I've had, I've not found that to be
    > so for my FX01.
    > --
    > Bill Funk
    > replace "g" with "a"


    Hi.

    It does NOT have image stabilisation. It has this new feature which is
    called "Blur Reduction". Which only switches the camera to a higher Shutter
    Speed.

    WOW, who would ever have thought of doing that for a moving subject.

    The manufacturers are promoting this like it actually is I.S.and the Mugs
    out there will believe them. Just the same way the Mugs believed that APS
    Cameras could take 3 different sizes of pictures, or that any form of close
    up is Macro.

    It is a piece of crap designed for those who don't know any better.

    Roy G
    Roy G, Aug 10, 2006
    #19
  20. newcamz.blogspot.com

    ASAAR Guest

    On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 00:55:32 GMT, Roy G wrote:

    > It does NOT have image stabilisation. It has this new feature which is
    > called "Blur Reduction". Which only switches the camera to a higher Shutter
    > Speed.
    >
    > WOW, who would ever have thought of doing that for a moving subject.
    >
    > The manufacturers are promoting this like it actually is I.S.and the Mugs
    > out there will believe them. Just the same way the Mugs believed that APS
    > Cameras could take 3 different sizes of pictures, or that any form of close
    > up is Macro.
    >
    > It is a piece of crap designed for those who don't know any better.


    I'd change that to "It may crappy compared to IS, but it can be
    very useful crap for those who don't know any better". Believe it
    or not, but there are many snapshooters that know little to nothing
    about apertures and shutter speeds. Unfortunately, they'd have to
    know at least a tiny bit about this to know when it might be
    advantageous to actually *use* "Blur Reduction" mode. If they
    don't, there's a slim possibility that after seeing blurry prints
    they *might* remember seeing something about a "Blur Reduction" mode
    and try it out. That would help reduce the blur somewhat, but also
    add some noise to the shots. Then they might check the camera or
    manual to see if there's also a "Speckle Reduction" mode. And once
    the manual is opened, the sky's the limit. See? In the long run
    this crappy design may actually be able to teach the "camera
    illiterate" something about photography! :)
    ASAAR, Aug 10, 2006
    #20
    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. Eberhard Funke

    Sandisk Ultra II, "new" Ultra, "original " Ultra

    Eberhard Funke, Jan 13, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    499
    Eberhard Funke
    Jan 13, 2004
  2. Doghouse Riley
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    3,861
    David J Taylor
    Aug 10, 2004
  3. Replies:
    6
    Views:
    486
  4. Replies:
    5
    Views:
    664
    Yakov Chiu
    Apr 1, 2005
  5. Replies:
    10
    Views:
    721
    Paul Rubin
    Jan 9, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page