Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Kodak

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 21, 2009, 3:49 AM   #21
Super Moderator
Mark1616's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,396

Originally Posted by mtclimber View Post
Hello Flying Fossil-

No, Kodak never made the leap to DSLR cameras, I am sorry to say. However, Sony has become as excellent choice both in the A-700 and A-900 models. Thanks for posting.

Sarah Joyce
Kodak actually had about 8 or so dSLR models with I believe that last two being the DSC Pro/n and DSC Pro/c (the n and c relate to either Nikon or Canon mount), here is a link to the Nikon mount which is the way nearly all Kodak dSLRs went http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_...spro_slrn.html

Kodak was the first with a 35mm size sensor but I think the problem was they only went to the top end of the market with these models and had nothing in the entry/middle range. Oh, and when I say top end we are talking over $10k back in 1999 LOL.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21, 2009, 3:07 PM   #22
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Davenport, IA
Posts: 2,093


Thanks for starting this thread. I hope "Kodak Mike" is watching (Kodak Ron has retired recently.)

Let me start by saying that I have a hard time recommending any camera unequivocally. That said the only digital cameras I have ever personally purchased have been Kodaks (DC5000, Z612 and my son's C533). In the course of my work I recommended that my organization purchase Olympus Stylus series cameras after we could no longer purchase the DC5000 as the Stylus was the only P&S on the market at the time that met our absolute requirement for a dustproof camera. We have since purchased, over the course of time almost every Stylus/Stylus SW model produced (our fleet is 300+ cameras.) I personally purchase Kodaks because their overall image quality is better than the Olympuses and I don't need extreme dustproofing in my normal photographic pursuits. My Kodaks have been dead reliable except for the niggle of not being able to retain the time/date during battery change after a while. It is that reliability coupled with IQ that make me want, if at all possible, have my next camera be a Kodak.

All cameras are a compromises and my Z612 is one of the most effective compromises for my requirements in existance. The lens covers the focal length range I need (35-420 equiv.) 99.8% of the time. It will shoot 8 shots within its shot-to-shot cycle time with the practical result that I can take 4 shots during a single high speed pass or aerobatic manuver at the annual QC Airshow. The ISO 400 IQ is at least equal to the 1970 ASA 160 Hi-Speed Ektachrome pushed to ASA 400 and maybe even Ektachrome 400 of later years. Your and Alan T's Z712s would also meet my requirements even though they do not exceed my Z612 in every area. The LCD screen is much lower resolution than the the Z612 which since I only use it for review and menus is not really a big deal. The plusses are the extension of the useable high ISO to at least 640 (based on the evidence you've provided Sarah) and the internal panoramic capability. The shot repeat limit is a little lower but adequate for my airshow requirements. The Z1012 I think would great except that it's buffer limits the the shot repeat number to below what is acceptable for airshows. I suspect its ISO 640 IQ is on a par with the Z712. Perhaps you and Alan could do some tests along this line.

This brings up the Z980. The camera has a larger buffer than the Z712 thru Z1012 but due to its larger file size it only almost meets my 4 shot airshow requirement and doesn't get close to the Z612s actually capablility. Based on Steve's tests it seem to have a teriffic lens and performs extremely well in low ISO daylight conditions. I think I'd recommend it (and the Z1012) to anyone needing a daylight, one lens for every occasion camera. I suspect I wouldn't have too much of a problem recommending the Z1012 if ISO 640 would meet user low light requirements and they are not shooting airshows/action sports. I also am glad Kodak added the hot shoe to the Z980. If I had the Z980 I'd definately buy the P20 flash. Kodak also needs to get the effective price of Z980 down to that of the Panasonic FZ28. Kodak hasn't really hit the fine line of compromise I need since the Z612/712. Everytime they've added a feature I could use they have degraded the performance in some other area. If I were using and willing to carry a Z612, a Z1012 and a Z980 I would be able to take photos over a broader range of conditions than I can presently and some would have a higher IQ. Note that the Z612 still has tobe in the mix.

I don't really have much of a problem recommending the Z1085 if the user doesn't need an eye level viewfinder and extreme zoom.

A. C.

Last edited by ac.smith; May 21, 2009 at 3:11 PM.
ac.smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21, 2009, 9:55 PM   #23
Senior Member
sw2cam's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 358

Originally Posted by Alan T View Post
In reality, most people who aren't computer literate just give up on such difficulties. I speak as someone with more than 25 years' experience of helping folk with problems such as this. The fixing of problems similar to this may well be among the biggest time-wasters in the human world at present.

Most folk are not like you and me at all. I'm like you and worry away at problems until I've fixed them. However, I only worry until I've found a simple solution. In this case it was to erase Easyshare, and recommend everyone with difficulties to do the same. I also know when to call it a day, as in this discussion. I'll respond no further.

It's nothing but a five min fix.
sw2cam is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:06 AM.