Does *Anyone* Here Like Kodak Digital Cameras?

C J Campbell <christophercampbell@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> The camera snobs do seem to look down on Kodak; most of the criticisms seem
> to be excuses, not real problems. The only valid criticism I have ever heard
> is the JPG compression, a fault of many cameras.

A friend emailed me some images from a Kodak CX7530. Contrast and color
are excellent -- better than Canon G2, with which I'm familiar -- but
the JPEG encoding uses Quality 100 with 2x2 chroma subsampling, which is
about as stupid a combination as you could imagine.

Until I bought my 30D in October, I'd been using my Kodak DX6440 for 3 years
and love it still. Yes, the JPEG compression isn't the best, but I still
enjoyed the camera.
Rob

I have a P&S Kodak. I have only 2 problems to report: 1. It doesn't have a
manual focus, and 2. It does downsample the file way too much. Here is a
sample of the kind of picture that can come from that camera. I am not a
pro so generally enjoy just snapshots, but this picture enlarged to 8X10
without losing any noticible definition.

http://home-and-garden.webshots.com/...33599502BsOMiQ


"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:lM-dndXJ66rV0DrYnZ2dnUVZ_t_inZ2d@giganews.com...
> Randall Ainsworth wrote:
>> In article <CfGdnWdDWICKoDvYnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Ron Hunter
>> <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, there is a distinct anti-Kodak Pro-Canon bias among posters here.
>>> First because Kodak caters to the masses of photographers, rather than
>>> the serious amateur, or professional (which includes many, if not most,
>>> of the posters here). They consider Kodak beneath their notice.
>>
>> They're not that great of cameras to begin with. And that stupid dock
>> thing is just...stupid. You've gotta drag that dock all over creation
>> to get the pictures out.
>
> IGNORANT ANSWER.
> If the dock idea is so stupid, WHY don't you rag on Panasonic for using
> it?
> One doesn't have to drag a dock around. I carry a tiny card reader around
> in my laptop bag and use it to read the SD card.
>
> This kind of an answer is exactly what the OP observed about anti-Kodak
> bias.

Xatnep wrote:

<heavily edited, for brevity>

> 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.

<edited>

Hello, Xatnep:

I quite concur with your views on photographic elitism...despite the
very colorful language, involving canine fecal matter. <G>


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>

Bill Tuthill wrote:
> C J Campbell <christophercampbell@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> The camera snobs do seem to look down on Kodak; most of the criticisms seem
>> to be excuses, not real problems. The only valid criticism I have ever heard
>> is the JPG compression, a fault of many cameras.
>
> A friend emailed me some images from a Kodak CX7530. Contrast and color
> are excellent -- better than Canon G2, with which I'm familiar -- but
> the JPEG encoding uses Quality 100 with 2x2 chroma subsampling, which is
> about as stupid a combination as you could imagine.
>

Well, if it looks good, why is that combination so stupid?

Some subject matter is badly overcompressed by older Kodak cameras.
Looking at some of the "P" series, this appears to be no problem. Maybe
they finally realized that file size is not so much of a problem now.

Scubabix wrote:
> Until I bought my 30D in October, I'd been using my Kodak DX6440 for 3 years
> and love it still. Yes, the JPEG compression isn't the best, but I still
> enjoyed the camera.
> Rob
>
>
Likewise, but not interested in a DSLR. Wouldn't carry it.

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>> A friend emailed me some images from a Kodak CX7530. Contrast and color
>> are excellent -- better than Canon G2, with which I'm familiar -- but
>> the JPEG encoding uses Quality 100 with 2x2 chroma subsampling, which is
>> about as stupid a combination as you could imagine.
>>
> Well, if it looks good, why is that combination so stupid?

Switching to 1x1 (4:4:4) chroma subsampling at a lower < 100 Q-level
results in higher image quality with smaller file size.

Canon and Fuji, perhaps other vendors, use 4:2:2 chroma subsampling
because for some reason I cannot fathom, it results in quality almost
as good as 4:4:4, but saves almost as much space as 2x2 (4:1:1).

> Some subject matter is badly overcompressed by older Kodak cameras.
> Looking at some of the "P" series, this appears to be no problem. Maybe
> they finally realized that file size is not so much of a problem now.

Perhaps Kodak raised the default quality on some cameras, or the guy
who sent me the CX7530 selected higher quality.

Ron Hunter wrote:

<edited, for brevity>

> Some subject matter is badly overcompressed by older Kodak cameras.
> Looking at some of the "P" series, this appears to be no problem. Maybe
> they finally realized that file size is not so much of a problem now.


Hello, Ron:

Kodak's "P" digicams also have RAW and TIFF modes, though. The "P" is
for "performance," as these cameras are aimed toward advanced amateurs
and more serious snapshooters, in addition to the typical "point and
shoot" crowd.


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>