compmikey wrote:Does anyone know the *actual resolution* of the CCD sensor in this camera?
The decription claims "*effective" resolution of approx 16mp. Trying to resist the [BUY] button until I get some more info. The zoom capability makes this deal very tempting.

This camera really does output 16MP images. The actual number of pixels on the sensor would be more than 16MP and is not important. What is important to know is that more megapixels does not automatically translate into more detailed images.

Great little camera. If you don't want to spend $500+ on an SLR it is a great inexpensive alternative. I have this camera and then purched the Canon Power shot with a 35X zoom and the Kodak is MUCH better and easier to use.

magicwuff wrote:While Super-zooms like this generally give you more control over your shots than point-n-shoots, this should not be confused with a DSLR.

Here is just one example of a comparison between a super-zoom (This camera) and an SLR.

Clicky

This is fantastic information, thank you for the link.

Am i to believe i cannot purchase this wonderful item if i live in australia??

Please please please tell me i am wrong...

I received a Nikon DSLR as a gift, and was not that impressed by the sharpness and clarity. The lens the Nikon DSLR comes with offers anywhere from [Wide] to approx [4X zoom] a decent lens with more zoom costs as much as this entire camera. The Nikon's strengths are in shutter control, arpeture, etc. More control.
WIth this Kodak, AA batteries mean that if I'm on the road - away from my charger, and don't have the luxury of time to wait for a recharge cycle, I can buy what I need at a drug store in order to keep shooting pics. With Kodak cameras, I already know from experience to "carry extra batteries". I like rechargables, but alkalines work in an emergency. At this price for that kind of zoom, I'm in for one!

As a resident of Kodak's hometown, I enjoyed reading the wisecracks in the description. Sad to say, but they hit the mark perfectly. Once THE place to work around here, years of mismanagement and completely missing the mark on digital for way too long really shattered the institution.

Too bad I just bought the Fuji camera that was on Woot last week (I know, that's a sacrilege in this town)...this one looks pretty good for a P&S.

bowlingb wrote:Does anyone still process 120 or 220 film anymore? I have been interested in getting into medium format shooting but it has been very unclear to me if it is even possible any more.

Any advice would be appreciated.

Believe it or not, Walmart and Rite-Aid offers 120 and 220 processing, the only problem is that they will send you back prints that you will have to scan yourself. The rumor is that Dwain's Photo is doing the processing, I can not confirm that, but I will say that they whoever is doing it they do nice work and are doing processing and printing for about $2 for a roll of 120 color film. I do my own B&W so I have no idea about pricing on that.

I recommend Walmart or Rite-aid for B&W as well if you don't want to do your own. With home processing I have scans in about an hour without leaving home.

Send out times are running about 2 weeks at this point for color and B&W.

This is a very good camera, especially at this price. I have used this camera and found that the image quality is also excellent, including over low light (wide angle view). The lens is excellent. The video noise with this CCD image sensor is quite low as compared to many CMOS image sensors used in most consumer cameras. I personally prefer CCD for the improved color saturation trading off some battery life. This camera shines using rechargeable AA cells offering better battery life over Alkalines. Optical Image Stabilization is also a huge plus as compared to the basically useless digital stabilization many low quality cameras offer.
I recommend this camera.

Is there an option to get rechargaable batteries with this Camera?

radi0j0hn wrote:Here's the bad news: Spend $3,000 on a pro DSLR and another $1,000 on a really fast lens or wait 3 years for the cheapies to catch up. You aren't going to get the kind of shots you want with a $150 camera, at least not this year. F/5.6 indoors = slow shutter speed.

Maybe you should make videos? ;)

It seems to me that you are overstating your case by quite a bit.

1. She could use a camera like this with flash, which would improve the shutter speed to catch the action. But the shutter lag would still be an issue.

2. To avoid the shutter lag problem, perfectly good DSLR's, with kit lenses can be purchased for under $1,000. Sometimes even new, on sale. And there are many very good used DSLR's available, with kit lenses, frequently for less than $500.

Is this camera made *by* Kodak, or *for* Kodak? That makes a huge difference to me. And no matter what, it's going to have a guarantee of at least a year, which is pretty much the lifetime of any popular digital camera sold today. A year from now, the new whiz-bang models will be out, and this one will look like a dinosaur compared to that. How many of us still have our original iPods? I do!

FYI - that one is a 14 megapixels

mvsopen wrote:Is this camera made *by* Kodak, or *for* Kodak? That makes a huge difference to me. And no matter what, it's going to have a guarantee of at least a year, which is pretty much the lifetime of any popular digital camera sold today. A year from now, the new whiz-bang models will be out, and this one will look like a dinosaur compared to that. How many of us still have our original iPods? I do!

Chinon made quite a few in the early years, but who knows?

mvsopen wrote:Is this camera made *by* Kodak, or *for* Kodak? That makes a huge difference to me. And no matter what, it's going to have a guarantee of at least a year, which is pretty much the lifetime of any popular digital camera sold today. A year from now, the new whiz-bang models will be out, and this one will look like a dinosaur compared to that. How many of us still have our original iPods? I do!

Kodak hasn't "made" cameras for years, but the current batch have been fine performers.

I love these big superzoom cameras. Mine is a Canon, so I can't speak to this particular model, but I feel mine gives me many of the advantages of a DSLR at a reasonable price without having to carry extra lenses. Folks with larger hands might feel they're more comfortable than a pocket camera with similar stats.

craigthom wrote:If your camera has a shutter-priority mode you can use that to set the shutter speed fast enough to prevent blur and let the camera worry about the aperture instead of letting the camera choose both. If the light is low this could lead to underexposure, but at least you'd deal with the blur.

You can't beat the limitations that well with this advice.

Do the math: ISO 800 might get you 1/125h sec at f/5.6 (typical lens opening on cheap zooms). Setting the shutter speed to, for example, 1/500th will seriously, seriously underexpose. There ain't no free lunch! Find a camera with a top ISO of 12,800 or buy a decent faster lens...or wait a few years.

dafitzge wrote:Is there an option to get rechargaable batteries with this Camera?

The option is to buy four AA rechargeable batteries and a charger.

I have the Z981 and I love the fact it uses AA battries they last a good while and My camera also came with 4 rechargable kodak AA and a charger but I use mainly standard durcell AA pic count on a set I would say 250 to 350 easy.

I have heard very similar feedback from folks that own both DSLR cameras and point and shoot devices. Thanks for this information.

In for one for my daughter.

AnotherHiggins wrote:Solid specs, good price.

Phone cameras are becoming ubiquitous, but the lenses on them are tiny and designed with durability in mind more than optical quality. They'll never compete with the glass in a lens like this (in either the size or quality of the glass).

I have a Canon 40D DSLR with a few lenses and really enjoy photography. That camera can take better pictures than a P&S, but it's much more expensive and much more complicated to use. I used to have a Kodak point & shoot (until it was stolen) and my parents still do.

Kodak Point & Shoots are easy to use, even for technophobes, and make it easy to download, organize, and share your photos.

Some more specs:
Sensor type 1 / 2.3-type CCD

Effective pixels approx. 16 MP (4624 × 3472)

Zoom KODAK RETINAR HD 26X Optical IS Lens; f/3.1–f/5.8

Focal length 26–676 mm (35 mm equiv.)

Image stabilization still: optical, video: digital

Focus control single, continuous

Focus zones multi-zone, center-zone, face priority

Exposure metering multi-pattern, center weighted, face-priority

Compensation ±2.0 EV with 1/3 EV steps

Exposure Lock when shutter button is half pressed

ISO sensitivity auto, 64, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600

White balance auto, daylight, tungsten, fluorescent, open shade

Flash range [wide]: 1.6–18.0 ft [tele]: 7.2–10.2 ft

Flash mode auto, fill, red-eye reduction, off




So what you look for in a camera is an over-priced, proprietary battery?

mvsopen wrote:Is this camera made *by* Kodak, or *for* Kodak? That makes a huge difference to me.

Not sure how you would define the difference. I have a "domestic brand" Chevy automobile that was built overseas and imported, but the company that built it is owned by GM. Does that mean my car was built *by* GM, or *for* GM?

Perhaps the point your getting to is that nearly all electronic gadgets (phones, MP3 players, cameras, TVs, video games, computers, etc.) are built in Asia *for* companies due to the low labor costs. But the actual components going into that product may come from all over the world. And the design and engineering of the product *may* belong to the company that has their logo on the product. But then again, maybe not.

If you're looking for a digital camera that is designed, engineered, sourced, and built by a singular company, I very much doubt you're going to find one.

So how you answer your question is very complicated.

Does anyone know if this camera has the feature where it can take many pictures at one time. My Grandkids are in sports and I would need this function.

I've since upgraded but I had this camera and always found it to take great pictures.

ThunderThighs wrote:That's called Burst mode. According to pg 17 of the manual:

While the Shutter button is pressed in Burst mode, take pictures @ approximately 0.8 fps (frames per second) until there is no more storage space.

This post links to the manuals.

Yes, but .8 FPS is not adequate for sports shooting of any kind IMO. For reference, per wiki, most normal dslr's burst mode gets you from 3 to 8 FPS, which is probably ok for amateur sports shooting.

im looking for a camera i can take to ranger baseball games and take pics of various players in the field while sitting in the 3rd deck...will this camera easily achieve that?

My favorite camera of all time was my Kodak Z740. I took it all over the world, but dropped it in the Tower of London (no joke) and that was the end of it.

This looks like a good replacement

I just ordered one, for my girlfriend who wants to get into photography. I figure it would be a nice starter camera for her before she gets a DSLR.

But I just noticed the shipping is smartpost, I hate smartpost.

kfernand wrote:Does anyone know if this camera has the feature where it can take many pictures at one time. My Grandkids are in sports and I would need this function.

No. Spend a lot more money if you want to shoot sports action shots. Outdoors, perhaps, it will be OK some of the time. Indoors, there just isn't enough light going through the lens to support a high enough shutter speed. "Digital" does not mean "magic." Cameras of all kinds still are bound by the laws of physics.

People who go from decision free point and shoots and then want to shoot in very challenging situations need to learn a lot more about photography or they will waste money on gear that can't do the job.

elmuchachos wrote:im looking for a camera i can take to ranger baseball games and take pics of various players in the field while sitting in the 3rd deck...will this camera easily achieve that?

This camera will do the job nicely but be sure there is plenty of light when you are using a lot of zoom, and be sure not to use flash. Hold the camera firmly, hold your breath and "squeeze" the shutter release. This camera offers quite a bit of zoom and even though there is optical stability control, it can't perform miracles when you shake the camera.

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

Agree'd ... I don't want to buy a camera without the ability to take AA batteries because I always have Eneloop's ready to go... Last thing I need is another one-item-use battery with another special charger to keep track of.

If only the higher end cameras took AAs ...

Is this the model with the in-camera panoramic stitching? Anyone have experience with that and if so, how well does it work?

[quote postid="4981903" user="speedoo"]It seems to me that you are overstating your case by quite a bit.

1. She could use a camera like this with flash, which would improve the shutter speed to catch the action. But the shutter lag would still be an issue.

Sorry, that's wrong. The flash covers 13 feet, and she will be in the bleachers. Plus, the flash will probably set the shutter at a fixed speed. And she may get kicked out for using flash in the first place.

Trust me, I've dealt with this question for more than 7 years from students of all ages. Eventually, as ISOs increase, it will get better.

But now you need to spend a lot more money if you want to shoot sports action shots. Outdoors, perhaps,a cheapie will be OK some of the time. Indoors, there just isn't enough light going through the lens to support a high enough shutter speed. "Digital" does not mean "magic." Cameras of all kinds still are bound by the laws of physics.

People who go from decision free point and shoots and then want to shoot in very challenging situations need to learn a lot more about photography or they will waste money on gear that can't do the job.

speedoo wrote:It seems to me that you are overstating your case by quite a bit.

2. To avoid the shutter lag problem, perfectly good DSLR's, with kit lenses can be purchased for under $1,000. Sometimes even new, on sale. And there are many very good used DSLR's available, with kit lenses, frequently for less than $500.

"Kit" lenses are usually no faster than the built-in ones!!! My local store hates to sell them to exactly this kind of customer because they quickly go to f/5.6 just like the compact lenses. There are no cheap shortcuts at this time. Period.

radi0j0hn wrote:[quote postid="4981903" user="speedoo"]It seems to me that you are overstating your case by quite a bit.

1. She could use a camera like this with flash, which would improve the shutter speed to catch the action. But the shutter lag would still be an issue.

Sorry, that's wrong. The flash covers 13 feet, and she will be in the bleachers. Plus, the flash will probably set the shutter at a fixed speed. And she may get kicked out for using flash in the first place.

Trust me, I've dealt with this question for more than 7 years from students of all ages. Eventually, as ISOs increase, it will get better.

But now you need to spend a lot more money if you want to shoot sports action shots. Outdoors, perhaps,a cheapie will be OK some of the time. Indoors, there just isn't enough light going through the lens to support a high enough shutter speed. "Digital" does not mean "magic." Cameras of all kinds still are bound by the laws of physics.

People who go from decision free point and shoots and then want to shoot in very challenging situations need to learn a lot more about photography or they will waste money on gear that can't do the job.

I think you need to re-read the question she asked. Nowhere did she say anything about shooting at distance or bleachers.. From her question, it appears shooting at 13 feet or less is what she would be doing. And outdoors in sunlight she probably won't need the flash anyway.

speedoo wrote:I think you need to re-read the question she asked. Nowhere did she say anything about shooting at distance or bleachers.. From her question, it appears shooting at 13 feet or less is what she would be doing. And outdoors in sunlight she probably won't need the flash anyway.

I've dealt with dozens of these nice folks and I think I now now very well what they are trying to do. They really are hoping for action shots of their kids/grandkids playing in the game indoors. Trust me on this. I'm trying to save them wasted money and frustration. Many of them have never spent more than $35 for a camera and naturally think something around $200 must be all they need. Some even hope to shoot weddings professionally with these cameras.

Here’s the problem in a nuthshell. In almost every type of product, there is “commercial grade” and “high grade.” For example, Mr. Coffee and others make acceptable espresso machines for $89. But a real barista will spend $3,000, especially if the gear is used as part of a coffee shop.

Even your nicest home washing machines are no match for the ones built for use in laundromats.

You would never think of buying a car off the showroom and entering it in the Daytona 500.

But because digital cameras have been so hyped-up, people think they can by some $150 camera and shoot just like the pros. While they may have as good an eye as a pro and while under nice conditions they can get good shots, it’s in the extremes that the difference is found.

Do you think that pro sports photographers would spend $3,000 for one lens if they could get by with a camera like this one?

Will you occasionally get lucky and get and good shot? Sure. But when you are zoomed out to 460mm inside with no tripod and an f/5.6 or even f/8 maximum aperture, you are NOT going to get the shots you want.

So it’s time to quit dreaming and get real about what you are buying. In a few years, this may all be a moot point as the technology improves. But right now folks need to quit trying to shoot near-impossible shots with gear not designed for the job.

I'd rather have AA batteries than a proprietary one. Spare rechargeables are easy and in an emergency you can use regualar batteries. I keep an old Canon in my car with Eneloop batteries so it's always ready.

radi0j0hn wrote:I've dealt with dozens of these nice folks and I think I now now very well what they are trying to do. They really are hoping for action shots of their kids/grandkids playing in the game indoors. Trust me on this. I'm trying to save them wasted money and frustration. Many of them have never spent more than $35 for a camera and naturally think something around $200 must be all they need. Some even hope to shoot weddings professionally with these cameras.

Here’s the problem in a nuthshell. In almost every type of product, there is “commercial grade” and “high grade.” For example, Mr. Coffee and others make acceptable espresso machines for $89. But a real barista will spend $3,000, especially if the gear is used as part of a coffee shop.

Even your nicest home washing machines are no match for the ones built for use in laundromats.

You would never think of buying a car off the showroom and entering it in the Daytona 500.

But because digital cameras have been so hyped-up, people think they can by some $150 camera and shoot just like the pros. While they may have as good an eye as a pro and while under nice conditions they can get good shots, it’s in the extremes that the difference is found.

Do you think that pro sports photographers would spend $3,000 for one lens if they could get by with a camera like this one?

Will you occasionally get lucky and get and good shot? Sure. But when you are zoomed out to 460mm inside with no tripod and an f/5.6 or even f/8 maximum aperture, you are NOT going to get the shots you want.

So it’s time to quit dreaming and get real about what you are buying. In a few years, this may all be a moot point as the technology improves. But right now folks need to quit trying to shoot near-impossible shots with gear not designed for the job.

After some deliberation I went ahead and ordered one of these cheap cameras, because I don't plan to focus a lot of attention on shooting "near-impossible" shots. However, I may play around quite a bit with the ridiculous 26X zoom and take close up photos of birds and bunnies and things that are far away from me.

mdnorman wrote:After some deliberation I went ahead and ordered one of these cheap cameras, because I don't plan to focus a lot of attention on shooting "near-impossible" shots. However, I may play around quite a bit with the ridiculous 26X zoom and take close up photos of birds and bunnies and things that are far away from me.

Having lambasted them for sports/action, I can tell you that I own a similar camera and love it for general use. Do you ever question the sanity of buying an $800 digital with things changing so quickly? It does give me pause!

I decided to buy this camera.

If you're on the fence with this and another camera, I used this website for comparisons:

http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/cameras

It has a lot of neat specs it compares. VERY handy!