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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 12, 2008, 1:30 AM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 5
Default

I thought this would make a good back-up camera but now that I have one a few questions seem to be in order. It's supposed to have a 10.1 megapixel rating but after taking a few test shots and comparing them to another camera with a 5.1 MP rating 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. Maybe I don't have a handle on how all this works yet but I would think a 10.1 MP shot would have a lot more information (file size) than a 5.1 MP photo of the same subject. I was thinking maybe 6000+ KB verses 2500+KB. I know an Olympus E500 at 8.1 MP will have a file size around 5-6000KB. Am I not understanding how all this works?
Elwyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Nov 12, 2008, 3:03 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Alan T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chester, UK
Posts: 2,980
Default

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. .....
There are probably three settings for the degree of jpg compression - basic, standard, and fine. Make sure you're not on "basic".

On my Z712, 7Mpix images in standard compression are 1.5 to 2.9MB, depending on content. Using jpg compression, images with large areas of similar tone & colour (e.g., beach & sky) will be compressed much more than fussy images (e.g., detailed autumn-coloured foliage).

The online manuals for the Z1012 don't seem to include a table of typical file sizes, as other Kodak manuals have done, or maybe I failed to find it.

Good luck! As I'm agonising overa Z1012 or Z1015 purchase, this is important information for me.
Alan T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2008, 7:13 AM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 5
Default

Thanks. I'll check on that. One other thing has me wondering. I was debating between a Z1012 and a Z1015 but noticed on the Kodak website that the specs for the 1012 showed a shutter speed range of 1/30 to 1/3200 and the max speed for the 1015 as 1/1000. Since I do a lot of action photography, I thought the higher shutter speeds would be more of an advantage than the slightly stronger zoom lens on the 1015. Problem is with the camera on the shutter priority mode, the highest shutter speed I can get is 1/1000.
Elwyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2008, 12:32 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 118
Default

Hi,

I had the 1015 and was dissapointed, feel was cheep and plasticky and the digital stabilisation didnt seem great. The video mode was good to be honest but the mics picked up the sound of the zoom, alot and was in mono and sounded muffled.

By contrast the 12 seems to come from a different planet, I have only checked it out in my local retail shop, argos, and it is now at a good price for uk buyers, £169.00, and although its not covered by there 14day no quibble cover, am sure they'll take it back if you can think of an excuse!

Anyway, it has an is lense is way more compact and feels quality, to me anyway, also have checked out 100's of pcis from this cam and the colour never dissapoints, ok its a bit contrasty if I'm honest but overall it has good resolution and the hogh iso shots are amazing, yes a bit too much nr but still I have seen shots from this cam at iso1000, yes iso1000 and above that are way beyond what you should expect.

At the end of the day its a digicams, so it should be portable, yes, have a few cool features, definately(hd video and stereo sound in a great format mp4), nice zoom, 33-400, nice, great all round ability, yes and in the right setting take sublime pics, definately.

There have I sold it you, its' a great camera. The alternative,

Pan FZ28, weak video but better zoom range, some will argue better iq and the ca is better(the achilles heel of the z1012! sorry)

Canon, sx10/sx1, pricey, sx10 now hd video, sx1, well it has it all but it aint compact and its hd video may be too much, h264 codec and massive file sizes, I mean huge 1080p

Casio, fh20, good range but iq is so so, 1012 beats it imo.

Hope this helps.

Am waiting for the canon myslef, know what am dealing with but the z1012 is still on my radar, which should tell you something, as I say it ticks alot of boxes and is better than the 1015, which is a let down imo.


Adventsam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2008, 1:24 PM   #5
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 5
Default

I checked the compression setting and it was on Standard. Moving it to Fine only upped the file size to a little over 2000KB. Not nearly enough data to suggest a 3000+ pixel wide photo taken at 10.1 MP. I'll keep poking around on this thing to see if I'm overlooking something.
Elwyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2008, 3:42 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 118
Default

I think you might find the file sizes are larger in PASM, auto setting compresses the files more, I think!
Adventsam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 19, 2008, 4:33 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Alan T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chester, UK
Posts: 2,980
Default

I received a Z1012is yesterday direct from the Kodak online shop for uk£180, including KLIC-8000, mains charger, and delivery. This is remarkable value, 30 uk£ less than I paid in May 2007 for the Z712 with only a throwaway CR-V3 . I've got it as a long-term backup for the 712.

I'm happy enough with what I've seen of it so far. There are many minor changes from the Z712, some of which I like, and some I don't, but essentially it's the same camera. I'll report more fully when I've had chance to try it in daylight today.

However, this file size issue raised by Elwyn is real, and I fear there is a software problem, just for a change.

The quality looks fine, but the 10Mpix, fine compressionfile sizes do in fact seem very small, in P,A,S,M modes, but the camera seems to think it will get only 160 shots on a 1 GB card. If I switch to 'Smart Capture', still at "10Mpix, fine", it thinks it will get 320.

The card is approx 957MB. So that allows 5.98MB per image in PASM, or 2.99Mb 'Smart'. But none of the file sizes I have so far are over 3MB, and only 3 out of about 20 that I've kept for inspection are just under 3MB.

It's a pity no-one from Kodak drops in here any more to explain these curiosities. I may try posting in another unmentionable place, where I see a Kodak person actually participated briefly over the Z1015 software issues.

I'll post some comparative test shots, on a tripod, from my Z712 and the new 1012 when I can. So far it doesn't look as though it's going to get properly light all day, and it's blowing a damp gale, so they'll have to be shots through a window pane, so you may have to wait a while.
Alan T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 19, 2008, 6:44 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Alan T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chester, UK
Posts: 2,980
Default

Just took four nearly-identical, hand-held shots out of a window, looking for a suitable tripod location for test shots out of the wind.

This time, using aperture priority mode, the file sizes were much more what I'd expect, 3133KB to 4582KB in 10Mpix, Fine.

Here's a 3610KB original, PSP 'resized and USM 30 sharpened' (as I generally use for forums), full-frame image.

KODAK EASYSHARE Z1012 IS Digital Camera
Exposure program: Aperture priority
Exposure mode: Manual
Exposure bias [EV]: 0.0
Focal length [mm]: 5.85
35mm focal length [mm]: 33
ISO value: 100
Shutter speed [s]: 1/25
Aperture: F4.4
Metering mode: Multi-segment
Image width: 3648
Image height: 2736

Pixel for pixel, 100% crop, 1:1, full size, (or whatever language you speak) crop follows, in a reply.

Attached Images
 
Alan T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 19, 2008, 6:55 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Alan T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chester, UK
Posts: 2,980
Default

...and here's a full-size clip. Ignore the over-exposure. I should have twiddled it down, or used centre-weighted metering...
Attached Images
 
Alan T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 19, 2008, 7:01 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Alan T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chester, UK
Posts: 2,980
Default

I conclude, tentatively, (until I've done some more work), that the camera is fine, but all the automatic modes use much too much compression.

This doesn't bother me. I almost never agree with the exposure proposed by the Z712. The only auto modes I use are (a) 'P' when shooting flash, (but I often redo it manually to get just what I want), and (b) 'panorama', in case I've messed up the individual shots taken for stitching later. To overcome the camera's consistent overexposure I point up at the sky and half-press to get what I want. The panorama mode on the Z712 produces much smaller files than I'd expect, but it stitches brilliantly.

I'll let you know whether the Z1012 is the same.
Alan T 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 2:04 PM.