haydesigner wrote:I used the Kodak Z990 on my trip to Italy, Greece and Turkey two years ago, and got great pics.

The Z980 and the Z990 are excellent. If you're really a point&shooter, then I'd recommend the Z980. Can be found pretty cheap these days online. The lag time between shots is much shorter with the Z980 than Z990.

spacemart wrote:how does it perform in low light?

from what I've seen, no better than a typical small-form-factor point-and-shoot.
Personally, that's my ONLY gripe with this camera.

Doesn't this have a 1/3 x 1/2 sensor?

spacemart wrote:how does it perform in low light?

The camera has a small sensor and an average lens, so its low light performance won't be better than other compact cameras. What that means in practical terms is that for static scenes, it will be fine, especially if you only print 4 x 6 or view on a small monitor. But it won't be good for kids or pets running around the house.

I have a similar Kodak. First rate optics. Great for shooting memorable stuff like wildlife. Good video, decent flash. Battery life ebbs quickly unless you use lithium, then its good. Not great in low light, however this may be more sensitive with high ISO. Light and portable if not pocketable.

I will use this for shooting birds and furry critters in our back yard. And the occasional wedding/family gathering. And vacations. And ...

mtnadvkl wrote:Simply invest in some eneloop batteries. A little pricey, but compare the discharge rates. Well worth the cost!!

Agreed. I love my Eneloops, especially for devices I don't use all the time (like a camera). I haven't bought alkaline AAs for years.

I have a similar Kodak and am pretty pleased overall BUT.. why I won't buy another? The internal battery died after a few short months. This means each time I pop the battery out to replace it with the other charged one? I have to reset settings including time/date. After about two years of having it, I can have it on auto, but it switches between all modes from my just moving the camera around in my hand (aiming it up, down, etc.). It switches between auto, high ISO, manual, video, etc. My fingers are no where near the dial on the top!

No more Kodak for me. The picture quality is great, though.

How does this compare to a Nikon L120? I have a coolpix L120 and my biggest gripe is no manual exposure time control and this seems to have that plus more MP for $100 less than I spent on mine... What am I missing?

Very tempting...

If anyone missed this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qy4qpgk6ueI&hd=1&fs=1

One of the most important questions for me on digital cameras — and one of the hardest to find — is shutter lag. How long between button-push and the picture actually being taken? If you're taking pictures of kids, animals, or any kind of action shot, shutter lag is a vital statistic.

I can't find shutter lag stats on this camera, and the ISO only going to 1600 means you're gonna want your flash for any kind of low-light situation.

So...no thanks.

Can anyone tell me, in very simple language for I am a simple girl, how fast it takes pictures?

I have a ridiculously active 4 year old who does not grasp the concept of "hold still and smile." I can hold the shutter down on my current camera and it will take pictures continuously. By doing that, out of 50 pictures I get maybe 5 good ones.

So if this camera is not very fast, it's not worth it for me. Any thoughts?

AA batteries? Yes! When I sent two reporters off to cover the 1984 Winter Olympics, they had Tandy 100 laptops that ran on 4 AA batteries. Because we weren't sure that shops in Sarajavo (then in Yugoslavia) would have AA batteries, each reporter carried a container of 48 batteries in his hand baggage. Worked like a charm, including transmission via European telephones by using acoustic couplers that fitted over the mouthpiece and earpiece. The speed wasn't great -- 300 baud -- but the stories came through.
So AA batteries aren't a problem for me.
In for one (cranberry).

mtnadvkl wrote:The Z980 and the Z990 are excellent. If you're really a point&shooter, then I'd recommend the Z980. Can be found pretty cheap these days online. The lag time between shots is much shorter with the Z980 than Z990.

That reminds me, if you get this one (or any Kodak cam), make sure to check what firmware version it is. Then go to the website and UPDATE IT TO THE LATEST VERSION. I had incredibly frustrating lag issues with my 990, but when I found out my firmware was 1.2something, I updated it to 1.7something. The lag got amazingly better! Still not as fast as a pro-level camera, but much, much better. (And thanks for the advice, @mtnadvkl!)

Hmm, think I'll be in for one here. I've been looking to upgrade to something a bit more advanced beyond the typical point and shoots, but I don't feel like I'm quite ready to take the plunge on a dslr or an ilc. My plans for it are to mostly shoot outdoors while hiking, and judging from that video woot shot with I it I think this will do just fine.

Now I'm going to go make myself a tinfoil hat so Woot can stop scanning my brain and offering deals on things right when I'm shopping for them.

Krisis86 wrote:
So if this camera is not very fast, it's not worth it for me. Any thoughts?

ALL cameras are fast enough if you get into the practice of pre-focusing. That is done by pressing the shutter button down half way, so the camera can perform its focus and exposure calculations. Keep it held down until you need to take the shot and then fully depress the button. The capture will be near instantaneous.

If you rely solely on mashing the button in one fell swoop, very few cameras are fast enough, especially if it is under low light conditions.

I took the following picture with a Kodak Z915:
http://fav.me/d4vneys
Believe me, if you've been looking for an inexpensive point & shoot with fantastic color and ease of use, buy a Kodak before they're gone for good. This one doesn't have a Manual mode like my Z915 but I'm sure one can get similar results.

Camera's with disposable batteries, lol.

NewMaster wrote:ALL cameras are fast enough if you get into the practice of pre-focusing. That is done by pressing the shutter button down half way, so the camera can perform its focus and exposure calculations. Keep it held down until you need to take the shot and then fully depress the button. The capture will be near instantaneous.

If you rely solely on mashing the button in one fell swoop, very few cameras are fast enough, especially if it is under low light conditions.

I am a pro at pre-focusing, but my kid is still a human pinball and 90% of my photos turn out blurred. Maybe I am just not cut out for 21st century photography.

Can Woot provide us with non-videod stills of the juice or other pictures taken with this? I'm not sure if freezing the video on the stills is the same, because the pictures don't look that great.

Krisis86 wrote:I am a pro at pre-focusing, but my kid is still a human pinball and 90% of my photos turn out blurred. Maybe I am just not cut out for 21st century photography.

Then you are experiencing a different problem; the shutter speed (not the shutter lag) is too slow.

My old p&s Pentax only has a digital zoom, and cell phone pics are about all I take anymore. So yes, I've been wanting to buy a 'real' camera, and thought I might save up for a DSLR. But face it, I'm not a professional photographer and I just need something to take decent pics. This sounds like it fits the bill. Oh Woot, you had me at purple...

RIP Kodak. I will never forget my time in the darkroom, processing Kodak film while serving on photo staff in high school. I will honor those poignant memories by using this camera, that looks to be the last of the Kodak era. Sniff. Time to listen to Kodachrome by Paul Simon and reminisce.

robio wrote:One of the most important questions for me on digital cameras — and one of the hardest to find — is shutter lag. How long between button-push and the picture actually being taken? If you're taking pictures of kids, animals, or any kind of action shot, shutter lag is a vital statistic.

I can't find shutter lag stats on this camera, and the ISO only going to 1600 means you're gonna want your flash for any kind of low-light situation.

So...no thanks.

I have also been pissed about the shutter lag problem. Here is what I learned. On my camera a Nikon coolpix 8mp which was somewhat high end when I bought it ($1100), I immediately notice the damn shutter lag. What I found deep in the manual is I could get it to go faster between shots if I told the camera to use its internal memory! Yeah I thought, I finally figured this out.

Well yes and no. If I use the flash the setting for use of the internal memory is turned off. That is a problem because I use, fill flash all the time. So it all comes down to that stupid low tech thing of getting a power source that will let your flash go off and not need anytime to recharge. Best I could do is buy 5 batteries for the Nikon and just change them when they are 40% low on power.

Back when I shot weddings with 110 film and I had a huge and heavy battery pack I would strap to my chest. I am sure you could still buy that setup but only for $2000 or more camera's the pro's use. Good luck.

Krisis86 wrote:So if this camera is not very fast, it's not worth it for me. Any thoughts?

This camera shoots 5.6 frames per second which compares very favorably against the similar Nikon L120 which shoots just 0.7 fps (Source: http://snapsort.com/compare/Kodak-Z5120-vs-Nikon-L120).

jakehoey wrote:How does this compare to a Nikon L120? I have a coolpix L120 and my biggest gripe is no manual exposure time control

According to the specs, this camera offers full manual control of both shutter speed and aperture.

Krisis86 wrote:I am a pro at pre-focusing, but my kid is still a human pinball and 90% of my photos turn out blurred. Maybe I am just not cut out for 21st century photography.

or ...
you're Jumping your finger off the shutter after you hear it respond ...
that'll blur them a bunch...

I find I kinda start anticipating the moves .. so the camera is there first ... then finish pushing the shutter...

oldgoat99 wrote:AA batteries? Yes! When I sent two reporters off to cover the 1984 Winter Olympics, they had Tandy 100 laptops that ran on 4 AA batteries....

Omigosh! If that was the "TRS-80 Model 100 Micro Executive Workstation" ... wow, what a machine! They had to stop calling it the MEWS because executives didn't want it. But luckily for Tandy, journalists did!

Great machine! The slightly newer and improved-er 102 was the first computer each of my (now age ~30) kids got. This was long after the Model 100's heyday, so I paid ~$125 for each.

First commercially successful tablet computer. 1983. User-replaceable batteries. Eat it, Apple! ;-)

All the way with AA!

NewMaster wrote:According to the specs, this camera offers full manual control of both shutter speed and aperture.

Yeah, I was referring to my L120 not having manual controls... this one does, it's a lot cheaper, and it has better zoom and more mega-pixels... best I can figure is that this is just a crazy good deal...

I have a kodak 5mp, (purchased in 2005), and 2 Nikons, one small so I can carry it anywhere, and one Coolpix P500. I also had the P5100, but it died after a mere 10,000 or so photos.

The Kodak 5mp can produce nearly as sharp a picture as any of the Nikons, except for the defunct P5100.

However: The 36x has so many advantages, and is so flexible, that I am willing to deal with what I consider a slightly soft lens, although I would not hesitate to print at 16x20. Of course, one can always use a sharper, simpler camera, and crop, but that can get old fast.

I paid $309 for the 36x, and love it. Most of my life since I was 11, 64 years ago, Photography has been my hobby. For around 30 years I toted an SLR with a 90-300 zoom as my standard. I've opted for digital because they are lighter. Believe it or not, I can take hand-held photos at 36x, (shutter speed is a factor, and a few old tricks help), but I don't think that will last much longer!

To make this brief, I love the Nikon P500 36x. When I can afford it, I'll get an expensive, heavy SLR or DSLR with a good, heavy expensive zoom, but I know that it will be used for only about 5% of my pics. I get a great kick out of folks lugging 15 lbs of camera with a 2 foot long lens for snapshots!

This Kodak looks like a good deal to me. I always thought Kodaks were over-priced amateurish cameras, but that old 5mp still works, and delivers decent photos for my wife.

Does anyone know if this camera is connectede via USB cable, can I expect to be able to download pictures to the PC with camera batteries run down or no batteries at all?

squidalarm wrote:Does anyone know if this camera is connectede via USB cable, can I expect to be able to download pictures to the PC with camera batteries run down or no batteries at all?

Pictures are transferable by use of either the USB cable provided with the camera or over wi-fi with an optional "eye-fi" accessory.

This camera would be great if the f stops weren't so god awful this camera is completely inadequate for anything except bright daylight. And under indoor conditions it is going to wash out colors and lose contrast. Its worth about $0 unless your sole use is shooting the kiddos day baseball games.

Very, very tempting, but I think I'd pay about $50 more for the Kodak Z990, for a bit more functionality. However, the Z5120 is very appealing to me because of its size and the available cool colors. I'm conflicted!!


http://snapsort.com/compare/Kodak-Z5120-vs-Kodak-Z990-MAX

Capeto wrote:Digital cameras still use AA batteries? That may be a dealbreaker for some, including myself :/

Or a deal-maker for those that want to use batteries they already have or can get anywhere!

The Extended User's Guide:

http://resources.kodak.com/support/pdf/en/manuals/urg01327/Z5120_xUG_GLB_en.pdf

Online version here:
http://support.en.kodak.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/46227/selected/true


The Basic User's Guide:

http://resources.kodak.com/support/pdf/en/manuals/urg01328/Z5120_UG_GLB_en.pdf

Online version here:
http://support.en.kodak.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/46228/selected/true

oldgoat99 wrote:AA batteries? Yes! When I sent two reporters off to cover the 1984 Winter Olympics, they had Tandy 100 laptops that ran on 4 AA batteries. Because we weren't sure that shops in Sarajavo (then in Yugoslavia) would have AA batteries, each reporter carried a container of 48 batteries in his hand baggage. Worked like a charm, including transmission via European telephones by using acoustic couplers that fitted over the mouthpiece and earpiece. The speed wasn't great -- 300 baud -- but the stories came through.
So AA batteries aren't a problem for me.
In for one (cranberry).

You couldn't go into reporters lounge back then without seeing those TRS80 model 100s everywhere. The keyboards and the built-in 300 baud modem made them perfect for sports writers.

No viewfinder. Batteries. Hmmmmm.

sean1967 wrote:I have the previous version of this camera. It spent more time getting repaired / replaced by the company than in my hands.

I have owned two Kodak P&S cameras now. My old 5MP I've had for 7-8 years, without an issue (my buddy, whose camera was stolen, is using it now). My newer 10MP compact is 3 years old, and no issues.

It's entirely possible you got one with a glitch. Sad, but it happens to every company.

The 720p video on these is really nice, and better than you're going to find on many P&S cameras, IMHO.

markmc27 wrote: when I shot weddings with 110 film and I had a huge and heavy battery pack I would strap to my chest. I am sure you could still buy that setup but only for $2000 or more camera's the pro's use. Good luck.

110? Did you mean 120? 110 was those skinny little cartridges for tiny point-and-shoot cameras. Minolta did make an SLR that used it, but that was it.

120, big and square and medium format, makes more sense. It is still available, and I still run a roll through my Yashica TLR ever now and then.