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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 8, 2006, 9:51 PM   #31
Senior Member
 
En121's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 541
Default

I'm pretty sure he just posts first results... to give you an idea of what the image quality actually is. As opposed to enhancing and fixing in PP. I think most reviews try to do that. ;D
En121 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 8, 2006, 10:44 PM   #32
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 46
Default

I was thinking along the lines of adjusting camera settings only.

James
jcotton55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 8, 2006, 10:57 PM   #33
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 191
Default

En121 wrote:
Quote:
Ok... guys. I'm just gonna say a few things. A review is a review. Its one man's opinion. We can chose to pay attension to it, or not. I, personally chose to listen to steve's review. (Though, I listened to his sample pictures more. :3)

Also, if Steve compares all the cameras to DSLR's, why would he give the Z612 such a great review? I think Steve compares consumer cameras, with
consumer cameras. And DSLR's with DSLR's.

So yeah, if you want the camera, get it. Don't care what the reviews say. But, its also not fair to blame Steve for giving his opinion(for the people who thinks he compares all consumer cams to DSLR's.). That's just not right. Everybody has an opinion.
So yes, for those of you wanting the P712, just get it you really want it. But, don't get mad at Steve. I personally think Steve has some of the best reviews on the web. Not real technical, not too picky. And most of the time, un-biased. I mean, seriously, what other well known review sites give Kodak good reviews? ;D (Also, if the P712 meets your needs, I say just get it. Ignore the reviews. But, don't hope that the reviewer got a defective camera. Because, wouldn't you want to know what some of the pictures looked like before you buy? If they're not so great, and don't meet your needs, shop around. )
Cheers.

-En121.

P.S. sorry for the rant, I needed to get it out of my system. O.o
I dont see anybody panned Steve for his review.Infact his images clearly shows P712 images are smoother and noisier than Z712 atleast in his tests. But everybody has a right to agree or disagree with his conclusions. There are several reviews sofar about P712 and most of them are inconsistent about the issues this camera have. I like steve's reviews and you are absolutely true that he is un-biased. And rest assured nobody will buy P712 without checking its images. I have downloaded about 15 images from P712 of different review sites and will go for tough pixel-peeping.

My assumption is Normal sharpness setting on both camera (Z612 and P712) is not meant to be necessarily similar. With P-series cams Kodak has opted less in camera post processing (including sharpening). While Z sereis cams are with more punchy colors, sharper out of camera results at the cost of compression artifacts. I think just use high or moderate sharpness option on P712 will solve the problem which Steve has pointed out and if it is so (I will test first in camera shop) then I would go for P712.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"Atindra
Atindra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 8, 2006, 11:33 PM   #34
Senior Member
 
En121's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 541
Default

Good point. I think the Z612 stands out amongst the crowd of the Z series cameras. The ones without JPEG compression selection probably do suffer from the compression artifacs you mentioned. But, the Z612 allows you to chose compression. :3

Though, Steve never mentioned if he had the settings for the sharpness on high or not. And the P712 on normal. *shurgs* If/when I get my Z612 I'll have to do some testing.

Also, compression artifacts, such as pixelization happens on pretty much all cameras. And how much there is, depends on how small you make the picture when you resize. I saw this on both the P712 and the Z612. But, the Z612's was a little more pronounced. Probably because the Z612 image was sharper. That's what I got anyway. but, both look fine look okay when not lokking real hard. Or close. I'll have to do some more comparisons and pixel peeping. :3
En121 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2006, 12:20 AM   #35
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 191
Default

En121 wrote:
Quote:
Good point. I think the Z612 stands out amongst the crowd of the Z series cameras. The ones without JPEG compression selection probably do suffer from the compression artifacs you mentioned. But, the Z612 allows you to chose compression. :3

Though, Steve never mentioned if he had the settings for the sharpness on high or not. And the P712 on normal. *shurgs* If/when I get my Z612 I'll have to do some testing.

Also, compression artifacts, such as pixelization happens on pretty much all cameras. And how much there is, depends on how small you make the picture when you resize. I saw this on both the P712 and the Z612. But, the Z612's was a little more pronounced. Probably because the Z612 image was sharper. That's what I got anyway. but, both look fine look okay when not lokking real hard. Or close. I'll have to do some more comparisons and pixel peeping. :3
Steve didnt mention but exif data from both camera images show he had chosen all settings normal on both the camera (sharpness, contrast, saturation etc) .

I dont mean compression artifacts by pixelisation, compression artifactsare caused by heavy in camera compression and normally Kodak's consumer camera do it a lot. And this processing is done on JPEG format which is lossy format. Compression artifacts will limit resampling and cropping abilities.

I still doubt Z612 has three different options for JEG compression-I couldnt find it on Kodak site also as well as Ron Baird also did not clarify this. While I remember Mike O'Brine (a Kodak engineer) on the other site had mentioned that it doesnt have any option on JPEG compression. That is my main disliking for Z612.

I wonder about your exploration because at one end you are willing to go for dslrs but on the other hand you dont need SLR type advanced features offered on P712. I dont think mostly people buy DSLRs for point and shoot photography and many entry level dslrs have not so good jpeg engines and images need lot of post processing.

Atindra
Atindra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2006, 7:14 PM   #36
Senior Member
 
En121's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 541
Default

I agree. Better to shoot RAW with DSLR's. Also, in Steve's review, at the conclusion section, read through it, he mentions FINE mode. shot all of his shots in 6mp fine mode. Also, you can go into the demo for the Z612 at Kodak.com, and go into the menu for picture taking. Then, you'll see it.


Oh, as for your other comment, its not that I don't want some of the features on the P712. Its that I don't need some of the features on the P712. I just can't really justify the noise on the P712. XD But, that's just me. Anyway, if we got the D50, it would be a family camera. Not mine. I would use it. But, it would be shared. Also, I plan on doing a litte more than 'point and shoot' with my new camera. Also, you could very well use a D50 for point and shoot. But, it can also be used for much much more. I also don't think I'm ready for a DSLR. Not yet. So, I'm going for the Z612 right now. Has the features I want/need. And a ton more features than our current camera.
Quote:
En121 wrote:
Quote:
Good point. I think the Z612 stands out amongst the crowd of the Z series cameras. The ones without JPEG compression selection probably do suffer from the compression artifacs you mentioned. But, the Z612 allows you to chose compression. :3

Though, Steve never mentioned if he had the settings for the sharpness on high or not. And the P712 on normal. *shurgs* If/when I get my Z612 I'll have to do some testing.

Also, compression artifacts, such as pixelization happens on pretty much all cameras. And how much there is, depends on how small you make the picture when you resize. I saw this on both the P712 and the Z612. But, the Z612's was a little more pronounced. Probably because the Z612 image was sharper. That's what I got anyway. but, both look fine look okay when not lokking real hard. Or close. I'll have to do some more comparisons and pixel peeping. :3
Steve didnt mention but exif data from both camera images show he had chosen all settings normal on both the camera (sharpness, contrast, saturation etc) .

I dont mean compression artifacts by pixelisation, compression artifactsare caused by heavy in camera compression and normally Kodak's consumer camera do it a lot. And this processing is done on JPEG format which is lossy format. Compression artifacts will limit resampling and cropping abilities.

I still doubt Z612 has three different options for JEG compression-I couldnt find it on Kodak site also as well as Ron Baird also did not clarify this. While I remember Mike O'Brine (a Kodak engineer) on the other site had mentioned that it doesnt have any option on JPEG compression. That is my main disliking for Z612.

I wonder about your exploration because at one end you are willing to go for dslrs but on the other hand you dont need SLR type advanced features offered on P712. I dont think mostly people buy DSLRs for point and shoot photography and many entry level dslrs have not so good jpeg engines and images need lot of post processing.

Atindra
En121 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 10, 2006, 12:36 AM   #37
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 191
Default

Good luck En for your choice and keep posting some pics from new camera.

Atindra
Atindra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 10, 2006, 1:43 PM   #38
Senior Member
 
En121's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 541
Default

Yeah. Thank you. ^_^ I have a feeling I'm gonna get it before we go to the beach. :3 I'm looking forward to seeng some of your shots from your P712! ^_^
Quote:
Good luck En for your choice and keep posting some pics from new camera.

Atindra
En121 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 10, 2006, 4:38 PM   #39
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 191
Default

Hi En

There is an excellent review for Z612 on photoxels.com

http://www.photoxels.com/kodak-z612-review.html

After reading it I have to apologise to you for putting wrong facts that Z612 doesnt have control over JPEG compression-review tells it has.

And after reading this review I am inclined to Z612. Now the only way to end my dilemma is to practically handle both camera my self of to rely on some of our forum member to do side by side comparison.

Atindra
Atindra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 10, 2006, 4:52 PM   #40
Senior Member
 
En121's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 541
Default

Oh yes, I have read that review. He even mentioned that ISO 800 was usable... that seems like it would be real nice. ;D Also, if I get the Z612 before you get a camera, I'll give some feedback, and some pictures.

If I get it early... it will probably be for our beach trip. So, I would give feedback on it fared on the trip, and, some pictures! ^^

Its ok. No harm done.
Quote:
Hi En

There is an excellent review for Z612 on photoxels.com

http://www.photoxels.com/kodak-z612-review.html

After reading it I have to apologise to you for putting wrong facts that Z612 doesnt have control over JPEG compression-review tells it has.

And after reading this review I am inclined to Z612. Now the only way to end my dilemma is to practically handle both camera my self of to rely on some of our forum member to do side by side comparison.

Atindra
En121 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


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 12:14 PM.