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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 19, 2008, 7:28 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Alan T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chester, UK
Posts: 2,980
Default

Elwyn wrote:
Quote:
...Problem is with the camera on the shutter priority mode, the highest shutter speed I can get is 1/1000.
By setting mine to aperture priority and f/8.0 at ISO 3200, and pointing it straight at an incandescent light bulb, I just had my Z1012 set itself to 1/2000s. I expect a brighter bulb might have given 1/3200.

So if you want a really fast shutter speed, use aperture priority, set a suitable, possiblysmall aperture and turnup the ISO (and put up with the noise, or settle for a bit slower).
Alan T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 20, 2008, 6:49 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Alan T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chester, UK
Posts: 2,980
Default

To continue this file size issue...

Elwyn wrote:
Quote:
......I noticed the file size for the Z1012 was smaller(1.64KB) than the camera with the 5.1 MP rating(2.15KB). The Z1012 is a larger photo overall too. I double checked to make sure the Z1012 was at the 10.1 setting and it was. .....
I embarked optimistically on doing some comparative test shots this morning, on a tripod and pointing through a window, with my new Z1012 versus my Z712. I didn't get very far before the weather defeated me, with sunshine coming & going, and then going very, very dull.

I didmanage one interestingseries of shots on the 1012, however, before giving up. These allowed one firm conclusion so far , which is that I'll stick with 'Standard' compression, rather than 'Fine'. Here is the evidence...

I took a pair of shots, differing only a little in lighting, and with the following settings. I also used 'High' 'color mode', because looking through the EVF with one eye and at the subject with the other, I could see a much better tonal match (as on the Z712).

100_0046.JPG (on the left), Standard compression, 2643KB
Date taken: 20 November 2008 09:52:44
Exposure program: Aperture priority
Exposure bias [EV]: -0.33
Focal length [mm]: 14.6
35mm focal length [mm]: 74
ISO value: 100
Shutter speed [s]: 1/40
Aperture: F5.7
Image width: 3648
Image height: 2736

100_0047.JPG (on the right) Fine compression, 4107KB
Date taken: 20 November 2008 09:53:16
Same settings, except...
Shutter speed [s]: 1/32 (light dropped a little)

These are full-size clips from a screen dump of a PainShopPro screen displaying the images side by side at 2:1 magnification, unresized, at 200% image size, 2 pixels on your screen for each in the original.

In my opinion, there is so little difference in quality that I think it wouldn't be noticeable even on a giant enlargement, so I'll stick with standard compression.


Ignore the foliage and branches; they're blowing about wildly!

I'll review the 1012 and compare it with the 712 in separate threads in due course. I shall use the 1012 in preference, at least for the moment.


The full frame of the 'fine' version, resized, but unsharpened, follows as a reply.
Attached Images
 
Alan T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 20, 2008, 6:52 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Alan T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chester, UK
Posts: 2,980
Default

Full frame resized of No 47
Attached Images
 
Alan T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 20, 2008, 6:56 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Alan T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chester, UK
Posts: 2,980
Default

...and sharpened at PSP unsharp mask setting 50, which looks very like the original alongside it at the same size...
Attached Images
 
Alan T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 20, 2008, 8:44 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 742
Default

Alan,

Could it be that there was little more detail in fine setting because there is little more detail to be had when shooting through window glass?
domang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 20, 2008, 9:54 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Alan T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chester, UK
Posts: 2,980
Default

domang wrote:
Quote:
...because there is little more detail to be had when shooting through window glass?
Well, maybe. But I doubt it. I'll try it with the window open one day, if I can be bothered. I'll be amazed if it makes any difference, as the differences between the images on pixel by pixel inspection are very tiny, and those could easily be ascribable to the slightly different lighting & exposure.

When I did the same exercise on the Z712 shortly after I got it, I was trying to decide whether I could get away with 'basic' compression, and decided I could, most of the time.I eventually settled on 'standard' routinely, just in case of heavy cropping. I was sure then (shooting a hedge through an open window) that 'fine' wasn't worth the space, with very little difference from 'standard'.

Anyway, everyone can decide for themselves what to do, and could even do their own experiments, e.g., on whether a pane of glass could make a visible difference, and mask a discrepancy! (Hint, hint!). I'd be delighted to see other folks' results.

The key point relevant to the original question is that the Z1012 does indeed retain lots of information at least in its non-automatic modes, stored with a reasonably large file size, compared with lesser cameras with fewer pixels.
Alan T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 21, 2008, 6:46 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 118
Default

Personally I think the z1012 is a gem of a p&s, much better than the 15, pics just seem to pop out from this cam.

Have one more week to wait for the new canon sx1, if its not worth the hype I'll be getting the kodak for my p&s duties.

Good luck
Adventsam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 22, 2008, 9:49 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
sw2cam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 358
Default

In the PASM mode set the compression to fine. The auto mode uses a bit more compression.
sw2cam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2008, 12:39 PM   #19
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 5
Default

When I bought my Z1012 I was thinking it would be similar to my P850 with the added bonus of a slightly stronger zoom and double the megapixel rating. I'm very skeptical of the 10 megapixel claim after seeing the file sizes. One thing that I didn't expect was the slight shutter lag. On the P850 after pressing the release half-way down to prefocus, it seems to fire immediately when pressed the rest of the way. On the 1012 after prefocusing there is still a slight lag when the release is pressed the rest of the way. One of the main things I photograph is control line model aircraft and any shutter delay when photographing a plane close by going 50 mph or more presents a problem. A lot of my model aircraft photos have a lot of sky in them and when using a lot of zoom the sky often comes out uneven and grainy or blotchy even if the aircraft image is in good focus. I thought with 10 megapixels this might improve but results have shown no improvement at all. I've used an 8 megapixel Olympus E500 a few times and the sky is a nice even blue. How much of that is related to the lens as opposed to megapixel size I'm not sure. Anyhow, I'm not impressed so far, especially if you are going to use the camera for a lot of action photography. It certainly isn't proving to be any improvement over the P850 which is what I was hoping for. The attached image is from the Z1012.
Attached Images
 
Elwyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2008, 8:55 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

Elwyn-

We seem to have very different feeling about the Kodak Z-1012. To my thinking the Z-1012 has been a wonderful camera and a great improvement over the Kodak P-850.

The Z-1012 has faithfullyrecorded our vacations, the plays and musicals that the grand chilren are in, and of course family scenes at Holiday time like Thanksgiving and Christmas. And I sincerely believe that is what is was designed to.

I think that you are really ready for a consumer level DSLR camera and have some unrealistic expectations for the Z-1012. That is really not fair. When you have much greater demands, such as you have, you have to very realistically expect to have to move further upward on the digital camera food chain.

Elwyn, here is the long and the short of it, the Z-1012is a $(US) 230.00 camera. What you desire photographically requires a $(US) 500.00+ consumer level DSLR camera. I would suggest that you seriously consider the Canon XS (also known as the EOS 1000 camera), what you want is well beyond the Kodak Z-1012. Its time to be REAL, Elwyn!

Happy New Year!

Sarah Joyce
mtclimber 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 2:49 PM.