|
![]() |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
![]() |
#41 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 197
|
![]()
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 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#42 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 714
|
![]()
shooting_rubber wrote:
Quote:
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 |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#43 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 541
|
![]()
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.
![]() Quote:
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#44 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 27
|
![]()
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#45 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 191
|
![]()
wile_e wrote:
Quote:
Atindra |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#46 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 1,379
|
![]()
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.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#47 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 541
|
![]()
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! ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#48 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 726
|
![]()
for the P880, what is the highest ISO sensitivity in the 8 megapixel mode, and is it good???????
shooting_rubber. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#49 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 541
|
![]()
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. ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#50 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 726
|
![]()
i uno, but yes the shot ISO 1600 did not look bad at all!!!
shooting_rubber. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|