Does *Anyone* Here Like Kodak Digital Cameras?

I purchased and then canceled an order for a Kodak that sounded really
attractive to me. Folks here have advised certain priorities; other
reviewers on other sites as well. But when I have a choice between a
Kodak 7.1 MP with 12X optical zoom, IS, *and* the ability to record RAW
files, versus an exactly priced Canon at 6.1 (or Panasonic) with no
RAW, it would seem a no-brainer.

Are Kodak cameras just the victim of elitism? Exactly how bad is the
noise-at-high-ISO issue, or is this a digital straw man you'd find with
other manufacturers of P&Ss? CNET said (about the Kodak P712), If you
want to spend this much money (or something to that affect), buy the
Canon PowerShot S3.

I've owned two Canons (and returned the Digital Rebel). My first
camera was a 4 MP Hewlett Packard. While the PowerShot A620 was a
magnificent camera when it decided not to shake--a *really* magnificent
camera--I find it hard to believe Kodak would invest their money into
creating one lemon after another.

Anyway, I Googled this group to see if I could find the source of the
anti-Kodak-itis, but I found nothing. So I'll just ask: Why the
anti-Kodak bias?

<mutefan@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1168514117.396472.87110@i56g2000hsf.googlegro ups.com...
> I purchased and then canceled an order for a Kodak that sounded really
> attractive to me. Folks here have advised certain priorities; other
> reviewers on other sites as well. But when I have a choice between a
> Kodak 7.1 MP with 12X optical zoom, IS, *and* the ability to record RAW
> files, versus an exactly priced Canon at 6.1 (or Panasonic) with no
> RAW, it would seem a no-brainer.
>
> Are Kodak cameras just the victim of elitism? Exactly how bad is the
> noise-at-high-ISO issue, or is this a digital straw man you'd find with
> other manufacturers of P&Ss? CNET said (about the Kodak P712), If you
> want to spend this much money (or something to that affect), buy the
> Canon PowerShot S3.
>
> I've owned two Canons (and returned the Digital Rebel). My first
> camera was a 4 MP Hewlett Packard. While the PowerShot A620 was a
> magnificent camera when it decided not to shake--a *really* magnificent
> camera--I find it hard to believe Kodak would invest their money into
> creating one lemon after another.
>
> Anyway, I Googled this group to see if I could find the source of the
> anti-Kodak-itis, but I found nothing. So I'll just ask: Why the
> anti-Kodak bias?
>

I have a Kodak DX6430 and a Nikon D50.
I have been very happy with the Kodak, which I purchased because of the
Schneider lens. My only problem with it is the shutter lag but that is
common to lots of digital cameras. If anyone wants to buy a pocket size
camera I would recommend a Kodak with a Schneider lens. If you want
something larger then I would have to do some research first - meaning going
to the shops with my own memory card and taking a few shots then going home
and downloading to the computer and comparing.
Of course a DSLR is preferred for times when size does not matter.
BTW I do NOT use the Kodak software at all. Nor the Nikon software for that
matter. I consider something like Photoshop and Irfanview much superior.

But once again Kodak cameras are by no means always duds.

Gerrit - Oz

mutefan@yahoo.com wrote:
[]
> Anyway, I Googled this group to see if I could find the source of the
> anti-Kodak-itis, but I found nothing. So I'll just ask: Why the
> anti-Kodak bias?

Until recently, Kodak employed too much JPEG compression which ruined any
inherent quality they might have had. Perhaps that contributed, plus
their software wasn't all that great.

David

mutefan@yahoo.com wrote:
> I purchased and then canceled an order for a Kodak that sounded really
> attractive to me. Folks here have advised certain priorities; other
> reviewers on other sites as well. But when I have a choice between a
> Kodak 7.1 MP with 12X optical zoom, IS, *and* the ability to record RAW
> files, versus an exactly priced Canon at 6.1 (or Panasonic) with no
> RAW, it would seem a no-brainer.
>
> Are Kodak cameras just the victim of elitism? Exactly how bad is the
> noise-at-high-ISO issue, or is this a digital straw man you'd find with
> other manufacturers of P&Ss? CNET said (about the Kodak P712), If you
> want to spend this much money (or something to that affect), buy the
> Canon PowerShot S3.
>
> I've owned two Canons (and returned the Digital Rebel). My first
> camera was a 4 MP Hewlett Packard. While the PowerShot A620 was a
> magnificent camera when it decided not to shake--a *really* magnificent
> camera--I find it hard to believe Kodak would invest their money into
> creating one lemon after another.
>
> Anyway, I Googled this group to see if I could find the source of the
> anti-Kodak-itis, but I found nothing. So I'll just ask: Why the
> anti-Kodak bias?
>

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.

Now, re the matter of high noise, with high ISO. It is a function of the
sensor, and, basically, the smaller the sensor element for each pixel,
the higher will be the noise relative to the 'signal'. Since DSLRs have
larger sensors with more surface/pixel, they can produce photos with
lower noise at a comparable ISO than a P&S camera, Kodak, Canon, or
whatever.

I suggest you ignore the bias in the group, and make your own choices,
after all, you are the one who will pay the bill, and use the camera.

David J Taylor wrote:
> mutefan@yahoo.com wrote:
> []
>> Anyway, I Googled this group to see if I could find the source of the
>> anti-Kodak-itis, but I found nothing. So I'll just ask: Why the
>> anti-Kodak bias?
>
> Until recently, Kodak employed too much JPEG compression which ruined any
> inherent quality they might have had. Perhaps that contributed, plus
> their software wasn't all that great.
>
> David
>
>
The software isn't great. It is slow, and invasive. On the other hand,
most software included with a digital camera isn't much better, and few
people actually USE the included software.
As for excessive compression, true. Kodak needs to pay attention to
falling flash card prices and back off on that compression. My wife's
new Kodak C743 compresses the 7.1mp image to only 2meg, or less. This
ia about 10:1 compression, and is, in my opinion, excessive.

I believe the camera the OP mentioned allows choice of compression,
which Kodak has long ignored.

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.

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 06:18:29 -0800, What Randall Ainsworth wrote
Ainsworth repeating, but . . . :

>> 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.

Yeah. It's too bad that Kodak cameras aren't designed to allow
their memory cards to be removed and placed in card readers.

I have the V610 and for a pockable camera I am very happy with it. 10X zoom
and it fits in a shirt pocket. Image quality is very good for such a camera.
It isn't a dSLR but it is a good camera. Kodak does make a couple of nice
ones.

ljc


<mutefan@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1168514117.396472.87110@i56g2000hsf.googlegro ups.com...
>I purchased and then canceled an order for a Kodak that sounded really
> attractive to me. Folks here have advised certain priorities; other
> reviewers on other sites as well. But when I have a choice between a
> Kodak 7.1 MP with 12X optical zoom, IS, *and* the ability to record RAW
> files, versus an exactly priced Canon at 6.1 (or Panasonic) with no
> RAW, it would seem a no-brainer.
>
> Are Kodak cameras just the victim of elitism? Exactly how bad is the
> noise-at-high-ISO issue, or is this a digital straw man you'd find with
> other manufacturers of P&Ss? CNET said (about the Kodak P712), If you
> want to spend this much money (or something to that affect), buy the
> Canon PowerShot S3.
>
> I've owned two Canons (and returned the Digital Rebel). My first
> camera was a 4 MP Hewlett Packard. While the PowerShot A620 was a
> magnificent camera when it decided not to shake--a *really* magnificent
> camera--I find it hard to believe Kodak would invest their money into
> creating one lemon after another.
>
> Anyway, I Googled this group to see if I could find the source of the
> anti-Kodak-itis, but I found nothing. So I'll just ask: Why the
> anti-Kodak bias?
>

mute...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> CNET said (about the Kodak P712), If you
> want to spend this much money (or something to that affect), buy the
> Canon PowerShot S3.

The only thing that the S3 has over the P712 is the rotating LCD.
Which ifcourse will be over used and damaged in 1 month.
The P712 has a flash hot shoe, thereby your pics will be much better.

Mr.Bolshoyhuy wrote:
[]
> The only thing that the S3 has over the P712 is the rotating LCD.
> Which ifcourse will be over used and damaged in 1 month.

What makes you say that? Whilst I can't comment on Canon, the swivel LCD
on my Nikon 8400 has been fine for over 2 years now - certainly not
"damaged in one month".

David