Yow... Steve's P712 review...

[Ronbaird]

Greetings Atindra,

Thanks for the clarity. I try :-) I will watch the thread closer in the future. Thought I had from the beginning.

Talk to you soon.

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company

[tommysdad]

shooting_rubber wrote:

It says that if you have a wide angle lens for your 35mm SLR, it can cause distortion or something at the edges. I can't remember the word..LOL:-) You should definately read this article before buying that D50. Also do a google search and see what comes up......:-)

Tell me how it goes.....

shooting_rubber.

Didn`t put me off buying a D50, ( took the step from a DX6490).I cannot fault the D50 in any way,shape or form.The lens distortion can easily be corrected in PP.

TD

[En121]

That's good to hear, TD. Even though I'll be getting my own camera, my parents still might get a D50 that they can use.

shooting_rubber wrote:

Didn`t put me off buying a D50, ( took the step from a DX6490).I cannot fault the D50 in any way,shape or form.The lens distortion can easily be corrected in PP.

TD

[wile_e]

I am looking at the EXIF data. Why does the P712 data say f/5.6? The lens is rated f/2.8 - f/3.7. The f/5.6 doesn't look correct unless Kodak goofed. The Z612 is rated f/2.8 - f/4.8 and the EXIF says it was at f/4.0.

The P712 samples look much noiser and down right blurry to me. There is no detail in the grass. It looks muddy and splotchy. The sky looks grainy. The Z612 looks like it retained detailed. I hope someone else reviews P712 to compare images.

[Atindra]

wile_e wrote:

I am looking at the EXIF data. Why does the P712 data say f/5.6? The lens is rated f/2.8 - f/3.7. The f/5.6 doesn't look correct unless Kodak goofed. The Z612 is rated f/2.8 - f/4.8 and the EXIF says it was at f/4.0.

The P712 samples look much noiser and down right blurry to me. There is no detail in the grass. It looks muddy and splotchy. The sky looks grainy. The Z612 looks like it retained detailed. I hope someone else reviews P712 to compare images.

Exif is correct and lens F-number data published is also correct. f/2.8-3.7 means at W/A (no zoom) one can go to lowest F-number (by apreture setting) is 2.8 and highest would bef/8, nowif you zoom then lowest f/ is not2.8 anymore but 3.7 but highest f-number will be f/8. Except this sites sample shots I did not see this. Photography blog, digital camera review, imaging-resource, trusted reviews etc has reviewed this camera.

Atindra

[inneyeseakay]

Okay... I want to upgrade for more pixels... I am using a p850 now, if I could get rid of the p850 and manage to get the p712 for about 50 dollars more... would it be worth it? I am pretty sure I am going to do it, but I was just wondering about what some others would do.

[En121]

Well, if you really want more pixels.. you might want to look at a P880! It can be had for 350$ and under. With great image quality, excellent wide angle, and all sorts of features. (Probably better low light Af with the firmware upgrade... and shutter lag, auto exposure, etc.)

I'm looking to get one. It also features shutters from 1/4000 to 16seconds. (With bulb, I think.) And, 8 megapixels! But, if you want higher resolution, 12x zoom with IS, then the P712 is probably for you. that all depends on what you plan to shoot. If you're doing landscapes, scenery, macros, portraits... you probably want the P880. If you want to do action, wildlife, decent macros, decent landscapes... the P712 is probably more of your cup of tea.


For me, I wouldn't get a P712. Just because of the noise at its lowest ISO. Then again, that's just me.

Also, a P880 has 5.8x... with a Kodak teleconverter takes it up something 8x or so... But, the P712 starts at 12x... so, think about wether or not you need 12x. If you're doing far away wildlife.. .you're gonna want 12x. but, if you're just doing things that don't require a lot of zoom... (i.e. landscapes, portrait's, close ups, etc.) then you might want to look at a P880 with a Kodak TCON.

Good luck! Hope this helps!

[shooting_rubber]

for the P880, what is the highest ISO sensitivity in the 8 megapixel mode, and is it good???????

shooting_rubber.

[En121]

ISO 400 is the highest the P880 will go at full res. after that, it goes down to 1024x768. but, if you look at an ISO 1600 sample shot, from the DRCE source review. It doesn't look bad at all. A resize down to 640x480 would be perfectly usuable.

Anyway, the P880 is supose to have fairly low noise from ISO 50-400. I hear. Read Steve's review, he mentioned it does well in low light. (And probably even better with the firmware upgrade. Autofocus wise.)

Here's a link to sample of a ISO 1600 shot on the P880: http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/ko...00_0060-pp.JPG

A little soft, but, definitely usuable if it means getting the shot or not. (Probably good for indoor sports photography.) I'm looking forward to playing with that feature. As they look completely usuable. I don't print much, so, the low res doesn't really bother me.

so, it would seem as if the P880 is a pretty good ISO performer. I'm looking forward to mine. (If I get one.) Should be fun.

[shooting_rubber]

i uno, but yes the shot ISO 1600 did not look bad at all!!!

shooting_rubber.