Kodak blows it

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Don Wiss, Aug 26, 2005.

  1. Don Wiss

    Don Wiss Guest

    Have you checked out their new P880 and P850? See:
    http://www.steves-digicams.com/pr/kodak_08022005_p880-p850_pr.html

    It looks like they saw what Nikon did with their 8800 and 8400 and followed
    in their footsteps. The wide angle model, with a better zoom range than the
    8400 (24-140 mm), has a f/2.8 - f/4.1 lens with no image stabilization.
    Only their telephoto model (36-432 mm) gets IS.

    It would suck to be shooting in low light with f/4.1 and no IS.

    Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).
     
    Don Wiss, Aug 26, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. I disagree. Image-stabilized digital cameras are far outnumbered by
    very good 3X and 4X zoom-lens cameras. No image stabilization? Most
    photographers would just use a tripod or monopod, rather than rely on
    IS.

    OTOH, I love the IS on my Lumix FZ1. But the 12X zoom makes it
    essential.

    Why not wait and see the reviews of the new Kodak cameras before
    trashing them? A little objectivity goes a long way.

    -Cardamon
     
    Cardamon Dave, Aug 26, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On 25 Aug 2005 18:13:38 -0700, Cardamon Dave <> wrote:
    > I disagree. Image-stabilized digital cameras are far outnumbered by
    > very good 3X and 4X zoom-lens cameras. No image stabilization? Most
    > photographers would just use a tripod or monopod, rather than rely on
    > IS.
    >
    > OTOH, I love the IS on my Lumix FZ1. But the 12X zoom makes it
    > essential.


    Panasonic seems to be putting IS on all of their cameras, not just the
    superzooms. Looking through the line of Lumix cameras on their website,
    I can't find any, even the 3X ultracompact FX7, without IS. Any other
    manufacturers doing that, or planning to? A brief trawl through
    canon.com showed IS only on 12X superzooms (and SLR lenses, of course).

    > Why not wait and see the reviews of the new Kodak cameras before
    > trashing them? A little objectivity goes a long way.


    No argument there.
     
    Daniel Silevitch, Aug 26, 2005
    #3
  4. Don Wiss

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Don Wiss wrote:
    > Have you checked out their new P880 and P850? See:
    > http://www.steves-digicams.com/pr/kodak_08022005_p880-p850_pr.html
    >
    > It looks like they saw what Nikon did with their 8800 and 8400 and followed
    > in their footsteps. The wide angle model, with a better zoom range than the
    > 8400 (24-140 mm), has a f/2.8 - f/4.1 lens with no image stabilization.
    > Only their telephoto model (36-432 mm) gets IS.
    >
    > It would suck to be shooting in low light with f/4.1 and no IS.
    >
    > Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).


    I don't think Kodak has 'blown it' at all. It is the responsibility of
    the purchaser to determine if the equipment is suitable for the intended
    purpose. If what you need is a camera with IS, then BUY ONE. Many find
    that their purposes don't require one. Bottom line, if you need full
    zoom, then you need more light, or a faster ISO setting, or post-processing.


    --
    Ron Hunter
     
    Ron Hunter, Aug 26, 2005
    #4
  5. Don Wiss

    Don Wiss Guest

    On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Ron Hunter <> wrote:

    >I don't think Kodak has 'blown it' at all. It is the responsibility of
    >the purchaser to determine if the equipment is suitable for the intended
    >purpose. If what you need is a camera with IS, then BUY ONE.


    But I want a camera with a wide angle and IS for low light. Tell me which
    camera has that?

    Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).
     
    Don Wiss, Aug 26, 2005
    #5
  6. Don Wiss

    Don Wiss Guest

    On 25 Aug 2005 18:13:38 -0700, "Cardamon Dave" <> wrote:

    >I disagree. Image-stabilized digital cameras are far outnumbered by
    >very good 3X and 4X zoom-lens cameras. No image stabilization? Most
    >photographers would just use a tripod or monopod, rather than rely on
    >IS.


    Carrying around a tripod is not feasible for me. I do not own a car. I get
    around bicycle. When I'm traveling often the bicycles I rent don't have
    back racks. I have had far too many pictures ruined because my 8400 has no
    IS and a high f/stop, just like this new Kodak. Which is a Nikon copycat.
    They could have done one better.

    Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).
     
    Don Wiss, Aug 26, 2005
    #6
  7. Don Wiss

    ASAAR Guest

    On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 22:16:39 -0400, Don Wiss wrote:

    >> I don't think Kodak has 'blown it' at all. It is the responsibility of
    >> the purchaser to determine if the equipment is suitable for the intended
    >> purpose. If what you need is a camera with IS, then BUY ONE.

    >
    > But I want a camera with a wide angle and IS for low light. Tell me which
    > camera has that?


    If there are no others then why has Kodak been single out. You
    could just as easily have said that "following in the footsteps of
    Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Fuji, Sanyo, Samsung, HP, KM, Yashica,
    Toshiba, Ricoh, Kodak has continued the tradition of blowing it by
    not producing the camera I'd like to have." But you can get a
    camera with a wide angle and low light capability. It cost a little
    more, and it might have to be a DSLR, unless you don't mind using a
    P&S with a WA adapter. By going the DSLR route you'd have a camera
    that would surpass the low light abilities of the Nikon 8400 and the
    Kodak P-880, even if they both had IS.
     
    ASAAR, Aug 26, 2005
    #7
  8. Don Wiss

    wavelength Guest

    Don Wiss wrote:

    > But I want a camera with a wide angle and IS for low light. Tell me which
    > camera has that?
    >
    > Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).


    Konica Minolta DiMage A1/A2/A200 are all 24-200mm.

    You can also buy wide angle converrters for most cameras in this class.
    Canon, Nikon, Panasonic you name it. If they don't make it themselves,
    companies like Raynox, Sunpak, and Kenko do. (sometimes with step
    adapter though)

    You can also get teleconverter lenses and closeup attatchment lenses to
    broaden the built-in lens capabilities.
     
    wavelength, Aug 26, 2005
    #8
  9. Don Wiss

    Mark² Guest

    "Don Wiss" <donwiss@no_spam.com> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Ron Hunter <> wrote:
    >
    >>I don't think Kodak has 'blown it' at all. It is the responsibility of
    >>the purchaser to determine if the equipment is suitable for the intended
    >>purpose. If what you need is a camera with IS, then BUY ONE.

    >
    > But I want a camera with a wide angle and IS for low light. Tell me which
    > camera has that?
    >
    > Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).


    Most people using point-and-shoots don't feel they need IS on wide angle.
    Personally, I'd like IS on everything from my teles to wide, but that's on
    DSLR lenses...
     
    Mark², Aug 26, 2005
    #9
  10. Don Wiss

    Don Wiss Guest

    On 25 Aug 2005 19:53:48 -0700, wavelength <> wrote:

    >Don Wiss wrote:
    >
    >> But I want a camera with a wide angle and IS for low light. Tell me which
    >> camera has that?

    >
    >Konica Minolta DiMage A1/A2/A200 are all 24-200mm.


    Not to nit pick but I find 28-200mm. I see they have CCD image
    stabilzation. I seem to recall a thread recently where people didn't think
    this was as good as in the lens.

    >You can also buy wide angle converrters for most cameras in this class.
    >Canon, Nikon, Panasonic you name it. If they don't make it themselves,
    >companies like Raynox, Sunpak, and Kenko do. (sometimes with step
    >adapter though)


    I probably will get the FZ-30 with the wide angle converter and simply
    leave it on all the time. But it makes for a rather large and heavy camera.
    And with a super telephoto that I won't need.

    For flash pictures I would keep my 8400 with the SB-800, as the Panasonic
    flash has no "TTL." I do see that the new Kodaks do have smart flashes. Had
    they given the wide angle one IS it would have been an ideal camera.

    >You can also get teleconverter lenses and closeup attatchment lenses to
    >broaden the built-in lens capabilities.


    For macro I intend to hang onto my Nikon 950.

    Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).
     
    Don Wiss, Aug 26, 2005
    #10
  11. Don Wiss

    Mark² Guest

    "Don Wiss" <donwiss@no_spam.com> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 25 Aug 2005 18:13:38 -0700, "Cardamon Dave" <> wrote:
    >
    >>I disagree. Image-stabilized digital cameras are far outnumbered by
    >>very good 3X and 4X zoom-lens cameras. No image stabilization? Most
    >>photographers would just use a tripod or monopod, rather than rely on
    >>IS.

    >
    > Carrying around a tripod is not feasible for me. I do not own a car. I get
    > around bicycle. When I'm traveling often the bicycles I rent don't have
    > back racks. I have had far too many pictures ruined because my 8400 has no
    > IS and a high f/stop, just like this new Kodak. Which is a Nikon copycat.
    > They could have done one better.


    How about a light, compact monopod?
    That would really help a great deal, and would strap to nearly any bicycle
    frame.
    Consider it. It makes a HUGE difference.
    In fact, one thing many don't realize is that even if you have to (for some
    reason) lift a monopod off the ground while using it, it STILL has a
    surprisingly stabilizing effect, since your camera becomes a small part of a
    weighted structure hanging below it. -This removes all tiny hand-gitters,
    and reduces them to what is, at worst, very slow, steady motion...more
    steady than hand holding. I know it sounds strange, but doubters should try
    this for times when you don't have time to fully set up with teh monopod.
    Just having it attached--and even partially extended below your camera
    help--especially with smaller cameras that are more subject to hand-gitters.

    -Mark
     
    Mark², Aug 26, 2005
    #11
  12. Don Wiss

    Neil Ellwood Guest

    On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 22:38:38 -0400, Don Wiss wrote:

    > Carrying around a tripod is not feasible for me. I do not own a car. I get
    > around bicycle. When I'm traveling often the bicycles I rent don't have
    > back racks. I have had far too many pictures ruined because my 8400 has no
    > IS and a high f/stop, just like this new Kodak. Which is a Nikon copycat.
    > They could have done one better.
    >
    > Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).

    My wife and I have no car but I carry a tripod around on my bike and for
    the times that my tripod is too bulky I slip my monopod into my panniers.
    The monopod is light and easily carried even attached to the camera case.
    There is no great effort involved and I am not a youngster (73) but the
    convenience of having a support far outweighs the energy cost.

    --
    Neil
    Delete delete to reply by email
     
    Neil Ellwood, Aug 26, 2005
    #12
  13. Don Wiss

    Mark² Guest

    "Neil Ellwood" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 22:38:38 -0400, Don Wiss wrote:
    >
    >> Carrying around a tripod is not feasible for me. I do not own a car. I
    >> get
    >> around bicycle. When I'm traveling often the bicycles I rent don't have
    >> back racks. I have had far too many pictures ruined because my 8400 has
    >> no
    >> IS and a high f/stop, just like this new Kodak. Which is a Nikon copycat.
    >> They could have done one better.
    >>
    >> Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).

    > My wife and I have no car but I carry a tripod around on my bike and for
    > the times that my tripod is too bulky I slip my monopod into my panniers.
    > The monopod is light and easily carried even attached to the camera case.
    > There is no great effort involved and I am not a youngster (73) but the
    > convenience of having a support far outweighs the energy cost.


    I love 73 year-olds who ride their bike...
    ....Seems a good way to someday be a 103-year-old to me.
    My dad's almost 70, but he still likes to go to batting practice at the big
    league park and dive for home-run balls in the stands... :) He's quite a
    sight to behold.
    :)
     
    Mark², Aug 26, 2005
    #13
  14. Cardamon Dave wrote:
    > I disagree. Image-stabilized digital cameras are far outnumbered by
    > very good 3X and 4X zoom-lens cameras. No image stabilization? Most
    > photographers would just use a tripod or monopod, rather than rely on
    > IS.
    >
    > OTOH, I love the IS on my Lumix FZ1. But the 12X zoom makes it
    > essential.


    What happens in practice is that in poor lighting conditions, if you are
    near the tele end of the zoom, you end up with an exposure of 1/15s with
    an 85mm focal length. There are a number of cures for this - a tripod
    (which both Don and I would rule out - I want to just be able to carry my
    camera anywhere), increased sensitivity (which today means increased
    noise) and two solutions which the manufacturers could provide - larger
    aperture lenses (such as the constant f/2.8 zoom of the Panasonic FZ20 and
    similar), or image stabilisation.

    Unfortunately, the only two manufacturers of cameras with a 24mm
    wide-angle (Nikon 8400 and Kodak 880) both fail their users by providing
    neither a full aperture at the tele zoom end, nor image stabilisation.
    Kodak missed a chance to be a market leader here.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Aug 26, 2005
    #14
  15. Mark² wrote:
    > "Don Wiss" <donwiss@no_spam.com> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>On 25 Aug 2005 18:13:38 -0700, "Cardamon Dave" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>I disagree. Image-stabilized digital cameras are far outnumbered by
    >>>very good 3X and 4X zoom-lens cameras. No image stabilization? Most
    >>>photographers would just use a tripod or monopod, rather than rely on
    >>>IS.

    >>
    >>Carrying around a tripod is not feasible for me. I do not own a car. I get
    >>around bicycle. When I'm traveling often the bicycles I rent don't have
    >>back racks. I have had far too many pictures ruined because my 8400 has no
    >>IS and a high f/stop, just like this new Kodak. Which is a Nikon copycat.
    >>They could have done one better.

    >
    >
    > How about a light, compact monopod?
    > That would really help a great deal, and would strap to nearly any bicycle
    > frame.
    > Consider it. It makes a HUGE difference.
    > In fact, one thing many don't realize is that even if you have to (for some
    > reason) lift a monopod off the ground while using it, it STILL has a
    > surprisingly stabilizing effect, since your camera becomes a small part of a
    > weighted structure hanging below it. -This removes all tiny hand-gitters,
    > and reduces them to what is, at worst, very slow, steady motion...more
    > steady than hand holding. I know it sounds strange, but doubters should try
    > this for times when you don't have time to fully set up with teh monopod.
    > Just having it attached--and even partially extended below your camera
    > help--especially with smaller cameras that are more subject to hand-gitters.
    >
    > -Mark
    >
    >

    I'll second the stabilising effect a "non-grounded" mono pod has. I took
    apart an old tripod with cylindrical legs and turned it into a mono
    which slips into the front straps of my Tamrac 3 backpack. The camera
    actually feels steadier when the unextended legs are braced against my
    body. The bag's always ready to go, with camera, 2 lenses, a flash, mem
    cards, spare battery and mono pod ... right next to my desk. The tripod
    hangs on the wall and mostly gets a cursory glance as I head for the door.
     
    Bernard Rother, Aug 26, 2005
    #15
  16. Don Wiss

    PcB Guest

    <<How about a light, compact monopod?>>

    Don't know if this is true of all monopods but mine has a miniature set of
    tripod feet which screw into the base. Hey, it's a monopod ... hey! It's a
    tripod! (well ..... you get the picture). Don't recall what I paid for it
    but it won't have been much.

    Paul

    --
    Paul ============}
    o o

    // Live fast, die old //
    PaulsPages and galleries are at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pcbradley/
     
    PcB, Aug 26, 2005
    #16
  17. Don Wiss

    Ron Hunter Guest

    David J Taylor wrote:
    > Cardamon Dave wrote:
    >> I disagree. Image-stabilized digital cameras are far outnumbered by
    >> very good 3X and 4X zoom-lens cameras. No image stabilization? Most
    >> photographers would just use a tripod or monopod, rather than rely on
    >> IS.
    >>
    >> OTOH, I love the IS on my Lumix FZ1. But the 12X zoom makes it
    >> essential.

    >
    > What happens in practice is that in poor lighting conditions, if you are
    > near the tele end of the zoom, you end up with an exposure of 1/15s with
    > an 85mm focal length. There are a number of cures for this - a tripod
    > (which both Don and I would rule out - I want to just be able to carry my
    > camera anywhere), increased sensitivity (which today means increased
    > noise) and two solutions which the manufacturers could provide - larger
    > aperture lenses (such as the constant f/2.8 zoom of the Panasonic FZ20 and
    > similar), or image stabilisation.
    >
    > Unfortunately, the only two manufacturers of cameras with a 24mm
    > wide-angle (Nikon 8400 and Kodak 880) both fail their users by providing
    > neither a full aperture at the tele zoom end, nor image stabilisation.
    > Kodak missed a chance to be a market leader here.
    >
    > David
    >
    >

    The trick is not to provide the IS, but to do it within the price target
    point, and still not dispense with other, more commonly needed,
    features. No one camera will satisfy the needs of every customer.


    --
    Ron Hunter
     
    Ron Hunter, Aug 26, 2005
    #17
  18. Don Wiss

    Larry Lynch Guest

    In article <fEBPe.15192$>, says...
    > David J Taylor wrote:
    > > Cardamon Dave wrote:
    > >> I disagree. Image-stabilized digital cameras are far outnumbered by
    > >> very good 3X and 4X zoom-lens cameras. No image stabilization? Most
    > >> photographers would just use a tripod or monopod, rather than rely on
    > >> IS.
    > >>
    > >> OTOH, I love the IS on my Lumix FZ1. But the 12X zoom makes it
    > >> essential.

    > >
    > > What happens in practice is that in poor lighting conditions, if you are
    > > near the tele end of the zoom, you end up with an exposure of 1/15s with
    > > an 85mm focal length. There are a number of cures for this - a tripod
    > > (which both Don and I would rule out - I want to just be able to carry my
    > > camera anywhere), increased sensitivity (which today means increased
    > > noise) and two solutions which the manufacturers could provide - larger
    > > aperture lenses (such as the constant f/2.8 zoom of the Panasonic FZ20 and
    > > similar), or image stabilisation.
    > >
    > > Unfortunately, the only two manufacturers of cameras with a 24mm
    > > wide-angle (Nikon 8400 and Kodak 880) both fail their users by providing
    > > neither a full aperture at the tele zoom end, nor image stabilisation.
    > > Kodak missed a chance to be a market leader here.
    > >
    > > David
    > >
    > >

    > The trick is not to provide the IS, but to do it within the price target
    > point, and still not dispense with other, more commonly needed,
    > features. No one camera will satisfy the needs of every customer.
    >
    >
    >


    I would seldom venture to correct you Ron, but I think "the trick" is
    for the photographer to learn technique, and stabilize the camera.

    I have been shooting for many years with lenses as long as 300 mm
    without stabilization being supplied by the camera.

    With or without a tripod, 300mm (and more) can be done without the
    camera making up for vibration.

    Methinks the public expecteth too much from IS to begin with.

    I have a couple of cameras that are in the range of 38 to 380 mm
    (equivalent) zoom (one of them is a Kodak) and none of them have IS
    because they were built before it became popular (read that as cheap) in
    the market.

    I have only lost a half dozen frames out of hundreds shot due to motion
    blur, and my hands are not particularly steady for a 60 year old guy.

    My hands shake quite badly from time to time for no apparent reason
    whatever. I just had to learn to do it the hard way, because I started
    way back when IS wasnt available.

    I heartily recommend to all who do a lot of "long lens" photography that
    you take the time to learn to do without the IS even if you do have it.
    It will make you a better photographer.

    Would I buy a camera that has IS??? Probably, but not because it has IS.

    I dont "shun" it, but I dont crave it either.

    A NEED for IS is a sure sign you haven't practiced good technique unless
    you go past about 400mm.

    Of course this is opinion, and not meant to be a statement of FACT
    except as an example of how I view the world.



    --
    Larry Lynch
    Mystic, Ct.
     
    Larry Lynch, Aug 26, 2005
    #18
  19. Don Wiss

    Mark² Guest

    "PcB" <pcbradley@no_spam_lineone.net> wrote in message
    news:zNAPe.1877$%...
    > <<How about a light, compact monopod?>>
    >
    > Don't know if this is true of all monopods but mine has a miniature set of
    > tripod feet which screw into the base. Hey, it's a monopod ... hey! It's a
    > tripod! (well ..... you get the picture). Don't recall what I paid for it
    > but it won't have been much.


    Those aren't intended to be used that way...but laik bilong yu...

    If you want to trust your nice gear to a mono-tripod thingy that would crash
    over with a light gust of wind...be my guest. :) Wouldn't advise it, but
    who cares what I think...
     
    Mark², Aug 26, 2005
    #19
  20. Don Wiss

    Mark² Guest

    "Larry Lynch" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <fEBPe.15192$>, says...
    >> David J Taylor wrote:
    >> > Cardamon Dave wrote:
    >> >> I disagree. Image-stabilized digital cameras are far outnumbered by
    >> >> very good 3X and 4X zoom-lens cameras. No image stabilization? Most
    >> >> photographers would just use a tripod or monopod, rather than rely on
    >> >> IS.
    >> >>
    >> >> OTOH, I love the IS on my Lumix FZ1. But the 12X zoom makes it
    >> >> essential.
    >> >
    >> > What happens in practice is that in poor lighting conditions, if you
    >> > are
    >> > near the tele end of the zoom, you end up with an exposure of 1/15s
    >> > with
    >> > an 85mm focal length. There are a number of cures for this - a tripod
    >> > (which both Don and I would rule out - I want to just be able to carry
    >> > my
    >> > camera anywhere), increased sensitivity (which today means increased
    >> > noise) and two solutions which the manufacturers could provide - larger
    >> > aperture lenses (such as the constant f/2.8 zoom of the Panasonic FZ20
    >> > and
    >> > similar), or image stabilisation.
    >> >
    >> > Unfortunately, the only two manufacturers of cameras with a 24mm
    >> > wide-angle (Nikon 8400 and Kodak 880) both fail their users by
    >> > providing
    >> > neither a full aperture at the tele zoom end, nor image stabilisation.
    >> > Kodak missed a chance to be a market leader here.
    >> >
    >> > David
    >> >
    >> >

    >> The trick is not to provide the IS, but to do it within the price target
    >> point, and still not dispense with other, more commonly needed,
    >> features. No one camera will satisfy the needs of every customer.
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    > I would seldom venture to correct you Ron, but I think "the trick" is
    > for the photographer to learn technique, and stabilize the camera.


    Well heck... Even if they DO have IS, it helps to use basic stabilizing
    technique.
     
    Mark², Aug 26, 2005
    #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. =?Utf-8?B?VGlt?=

    Re: Standby/Hibernate blows out wireless connection

    =?Utf-8?B?VGlt?=, Aug 7, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,190
    =?Utf-8?B?VGlt?=
    Aug 7, 2004
  2. Jim
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,002
    Moz Champion
    Jun 1, 2005
  3. Jumbo

    Machine almost blows up!!!

    Jumbo, Oct 1, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    402
    Jumbo
    Oct 1, 2003
  4. ThomasH

    dpreview test: Leica Digilux 2 blows away Canon G5

    ThomasH, May 12, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    835
    George Preddy
    May 15, 2004
  5. Lindsay Crane

    Original Criterion Collection 400 Blows

    Lindsay Crane, Jul 4, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    365
    jayembee
    Jul 4, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page