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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 12, 2004, 10:04 AM   #51
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 22
Default

No, I would agree with that. I knew Kodak would never release an update that incorportaed the changes people were asking for. Why? Because that is how you make money, you release an upgrade that has the features you left out the first time. If a company put out a "perfect product" then they woud go bankrupt quickly due to not having any follow up product. afterall, why would anyone ever change their current situation if the were completly happy with it.

Besides, a firmware update only does so much. you need to update the hardware it controls to get the real benefits.
mrmegadeth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 12, 2004, 8:25 PM   #52
Senior Member
 
Tom Overton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,458
Default

I'm going to wade into this debate just a little. I, too would like to see more control over compression. As I upload my pictures every day, I'm not too concerned with storage space, but I am a little irked by the trade-off in picture quality that compression imposes.

On a similar note, (and more towards my own pet peeve) I would like to see some control over noise reduction. I've taken a lot of low-light shots that would be very nice-looking if it weren't for so much noise. If Kodak could add a noise reducion algorithm (a la Neat Image) to low light or high-ISO shots I would be very pleased. I understand that such techniques are in use, but it would be nice to actually measure the results.

My two cents.

Tom
Tom Overton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 13, 2004, 9:49 PM   #53
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 17
Default

some things like infrared remote support is not possible in a firmware upgrade. possibly the only things i see are the display gap between pictures, start up picture and the powersaver feature. Even then I doubt they will. For the record somene mentioned cell phones.. actually they do add features in firmware updates but phones are more flexible since they have a lot more memory and whatnot. Kodak won't upgrade firmware since it won't increase sales singifcantly.
eliteblaze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 14, 2004, 9:47 AM   #54
Senior Member
 
Tom Overton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,458
Default

I recieved a very prompt response from Kodak:

Feedback is very important to Kodak, and we thank you for taking the
time to share your comments about Kodak digital cameras. As
technologies change and improve, and with the help of customers like
yourself, we will be able to enhance our products to be as usable and
error free as possible.

If you have other ideas, encounter any problems, have suggestions or
comments, or just want to share your thoughts about our cameras, please
let us know, your thoughts are welcome. Your current comments are going
to be seen by the right people and you can rest, assured, that your
voice has been heard.


As one may have expected, Kodak's response is vague but encouraging. Reading between the lines, it sounds as if they would like to keep me just happy enough to buy the camera that includes bug fixes... the 65.... Still, I think I'll follow up in a couple of weeks.

For what it's worth,

Tom, on Point Pelee, Canada
Tom Overton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2004, 4:26 PM   #55
Junior Member
 
pixeljuicer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 20
Default

hi

i wish i could share your optimism tom, but the reply you received from kodak looks to me likethetypical bog standard auto reply of the "thank you very much your comments have been noted [read binned]" type that "customer service" depts fob consumers off with all the time - i should know, i do the same thing for a living :sad:

(not for kodak i should add)






pixeljuicer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 6, 2004, 3:00 AM   #56
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1
Default

I completely agree with you asking or, better, pretending a new firmare including all the performances you wrote, mainly manual focus, raw picture and a quicker speed between two pictures (it takes areal long timetaking two different photos).

I'll write you again and again since we ralize this matter from Kodak

Regards:!:
Lanfry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 15, 2004, 8:26 AM   #57
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1
Default

Hi all, I'm from Italy so my English should not be correct sometimes. I bought the DX6490 and I'm using it a lot since August. It's a great DC with very good components, but I written to Kodak asking for the possibility of a firmware update just for introducing a jpeg compression option. Yes, I would like some other features but tell me why I have a very very good camera that can produce 4Mp pictures but when I take pictures with wide area of the same colour (thinking about a blue sky) it looks like a 1 Mp DC because of its compression. Infact the 7590 introduced a fine compression (but I did'nt try it). I'm a software developer (not a firmware developer) and I think that it could be possible to easily enhance the firmware. But I think also that Kodak is not a "software manufacturer" but a "product manufacturer" so I tink thay are not used to think to their products as sofwtare (and you know that software is not a product because it is in continuous evolution: think about a car, if you buy a car you cannot ask for an angine upgrade or a firmware upgrade, you have to pay and to do it by yourself).

But, KODAK, please, listen us, we are all potential Canon customers.

mregazzi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 15, 2004, 11:02 AM   #58
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 26
Default

Mregazzi how hard do you think it would be to create/modify the firmware?
Bioviral is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 17, 2004, 5:22 PM   #59
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1
Default

Bioviral wrote:
Quote:
Mregazzi how hard do you think it would be to create/modify the firmware?
for practical purposes, it is impossible. besides taking an eternity to reverse engineer, you would need a large number of the cameras just to be ruined from testing on
nexex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 20, 2004, 9:10 AM   #60
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1
Default

I can only aggree with the most of these proposals for an update.

The most important to me are:

- lower compression rates ('I have been spotting planes often with the 10x zoom, and I really notice the compression on the planes belly).

- a clear view of the subject on the LCD or viewfinder when in burst mode, so that the image does not dissapear.)

regards,

yowankenobi
yowankenobi 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 2:17 AM.