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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 7, 2007, 6:27 PM   #11
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13
Default

Quote:

Your experiments are very worthwhile, because I haven't seen any othercomparative series from the Z812 round here, and the extra pixels may possibly be relevant in the ISO vs noise issue.

I raised the different brightnesses because I couldn't see how they arose if you did actually set f/5.6 aperture priority and leave it alone between shots. If that's what you did, we'll have to wait for an explanation or a different result from someone else, or just not worry about it.
well i'm afraid that my experiments will discredit the camera, which i like a lot already, because of lack of knowlegde on howto properly do it. i'll wait for sunny wheather, which might be a long waiting, because in my country, now starts the rainiest season. but i might get lucky i hope.

i did quite a huge research before buying this camera, and i hope that experts will prove that i did the right choice, although from my research i know that z612 was extreamely succesful model, with a few flaws in video mode, and z712 is actually an improved z612 and except a bit cheap materials of built and continous refocusing in video mode is an awesome camera.

i have collected more than 200 z612 and z712 pictures, which i''ve found on flickr, and analyzed them, most of themare pin sharp and extreamely natural. nice to look at them.

yeah i also heard disscusions of the too many pixels for small sensor, but several person, who own both z712 and z812 confirmed, that z812 is significant improve in, both camera built and performance.

continous refocusing even at single focus, according to others, persist on z812 also, however, i haven't noticed it yet, what about other things? well built quality is very good, maybe manual focus is a bit difficult to use.. or maybe it's just because of my lack of skills or experience.

as i said i'll wait for a good wheather, only then i'll continue the experimenting, maybe others will be first do do it properly, i'd like to see that.

thanks Alan T, for an interesting discusion, information, and tips, they were wery useful, and i'm open for your further input.


Mystic-grapher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2007, 7:34 PM   #12
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 14
Default



No one mentions the worseperforming part of the Z812 AUDIO RECORDING

The kodakhas overlooked serious audio distortion, and AGC level engineering problem.

Any Audio recording in high level background, live music, or a Stereo playing in the background makes the audio unuseable

If you have purchased a Z812 you have a deficient and faulty product that should have not been released until field tested under all audio enviornments.

Test yours, It will be bad! or go to these links to hear how unsuitable it reall is:

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=576892&forum_id=18&page= 3



http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=580768&forum_id=87

DeltaSac, Sacramento, CA


Deltasac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2007, 8:48 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Davenport, IA
Posts: 2,093
Default

Deltasac wrote:
Quote:

No one mentions the worseperforming part of the Z812 AUDIO RECORDING

The kodakhas overlooked serious audio distortion, and AGC level engineering problem.

Any Audio recording in high level background, live music, or a Stereo playing in the background makes the audio unuseable

If you have purchased a Z812 you have a deficient and faulty product that should have not been released until field tested under all audio enviornments.

Test yours, It will be bad! or go to these links to hear how unsuitable it reall is:

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=576892&forum_id=18&page= 3



http://forums.steves-digicams.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=580768&forum_id=87

DeltaSac, Sacramento, CA

We understand that your disappointed but most of picked a Z612/Z712/Z812 for it's capability as a still camera. We consider video somethingon the order of a dancing dog. It's not a question of how well it dances, we're just amazed that it does it at all.
ac.smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 29, 2007, 9:25 AM   #14
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5
Default

I'd just like to add to this by stating that while the audio capabilities of the Z812 IS aren't excellent, they are useable under many situations.

As somebody else mentioned, this is a still photography camera with the ability to record decent video. If you look at the stereo specs you'll quickly realize that it's more designed for images then audio recording (the stereo audio is only dual 16KhZ)

Having said that, I've recorded some videos where I'm casually talking to friends outside at the park or at a party and been able to hear what's being said pretty clearly on playback. I think the camera's audio EQ is mixed more towards picking up ambient sounds or dialogue in quieter settings, and less designed for concert videos, loud parties or crowded scrums of people.

If you're really concerned with getting high quality photography, video and audio, I'd either spend more money on a professional video camera that can capture high quality stills, or simply aquire a low cost, high quality audio recording device for audio so that you can sync your 720p videos with the external audio device on your computer. This is actually a lot easier to accomplish then it sounds and it's actually how people have been recording professional films for more than half a decade!

Good luck!
Double M is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 29, 2007, 10:55 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Davenport, IA
Posts: 2,093
Default

Double M:

Well stated.

I don'tuse my Z612 for video but I did a couple of tests this weekend. I recorded my television and the dialog was completely understandable although the focus motor was audible as a clicking sound when I zoomed to a moderate telephoto and made it work harder. It was rarely audible when I was at wide-angle because it doesn't have to work very hard under that condition. Obvious analog TV sound (50-15kHz bandwidth, FM modulated) is a fairly compressed source. I thenrecorded an FM radio (also 50-15kHz but with a greater dynamic range) through a high quality stereo system and the lyrics and music were decently captured. The bass beat did not cause any obvious pumping of the volume. While FM radio has a greater dynamic range than TV it still doesn't come close to live music and was probably much lower maximum volume as well (I doubt that I went over 90 dB compare to 100-120 dB of many live events.)
ac.smith 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 6:02 PM.