scottskillman wrote:Interesting video used to demonstrate the zoom. However, what is important, to me, is the sound of the zoom while being used. there is an absolutely cleat mechanical sound picked up on video during the zoom in and out.

You shouldn't be zooming while shooting anyway -- unless you're shooting a kungfoo movie, in which case the sound effects will drown out any lens-motor noise.

Real movies are shot with the camera on a tripod, and the focal length (and focus) set prior to the snap of the clapboard.

The biggest reason people avoid at all costs "stopping by to see the vacation movies" is the way SO many people tend to wave the (hand-held) camera around like a flag on the Fourth of July, while constantly zooming in and out.

People really ought to hand out Dramamine to their victims... um, "guests" when successfully tricking them into watching these virtual eyepokes.

(Or... they could use a tripod, carefully compose each take, and avoid the Hong Kong Zoom Punch Factor.)

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.

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.

My "backup" camera is an Olympus SP-600US which I bought new, on sale for $100 a year or two ago.I don't like the camera very much,just can't seem to get very many good photos with it. I wonder if this would be better. Any Wooters out there who know their stuff and are familiar with that Olympus model have an opinion on whether this Kodak would be a step up?
Not that it matters much but I also have a Panasonic DMC-FZ18 which I like a lot and use most of the time.

I find it hard to believe that the internals of this camera hold the capacity to process a 16MP image at any decent quality or at least at a decent speed since it looks like the bulk of the camera is taken up by batteries. This leads me to my second point, it'll take a lot of juice to power the autofocus motor and zoom motor on that massive lens. If you buy this camera, keep a few dozen batteries on hand at all times, you'll need them.

Guys you should buy, all the ladies will admire your huge zoom lens.

My first digital camera was a Kodak DC290, 2 mp, very well built camera, still works, takes good pictures, better than many more recent digital cameras.

Advantages for this Kodak is its a compartively hefty camera, which is a good thing especially with the huge zoom. You can get a good grip on the camera to keep it steady. I wooted a Panasonic FH20, great camera, biggest draw back is its compactness, small buttons, light weight (too light). AA's are a definte advantage, easy access to power. No darn the battery is dead, now where is that charger?

mindmaster wrote: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.

Good grief, are people spoiled today or what?

When I started with photography (circa 1960 or thereabouts), I used Kodachrome (ASA 10!) with an F. 3.5 lens -- which, somehow, I was able to use handheld, sans flash, and got excellent results.

Later on, I used Tri X Pan (ASA 400) for what was then called "available light" work, again, handheld, no flash, blah blah blah.

Lest this be construed as bragging, I point out that this sort of work was FAR from exceptional -- it was simply how we ALL worked with our gear, and got excellent results.

I'll close by pointing out the irony of the complaints of the slowness of this camera's lens, which, at something ("35mm equivalent") over 600mm is bloody FAST. A 35mm camera with a 600mm lens is going to be HUGE by comparison, and MUCH more expensive, and most likely a LOT slower (in terms of lens speed).

I've had a lot of fun with people, giving them 8x10 - 16x20 prints ("silver" prints, i.e., digital images printed on chromogenic photographic paper) I shot with my wife's shirt-pocket sized Olympus Stylus 300 (3.2MP). Much better image quality than most of the "pro gear" work I've seen.

In the vast majority of situations, it's the photographer, NOT the camera, that really matters.

craigthom wrote: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.

Pentax made a couple of 110 SLR models too -- with interchangeable lenses. I've got a shoebox full of bodies and lenses for them, only lens I never got was the Soligor teleconverter made for it. Some day the collector value will creep up, and my grandchildren can sell them.

I still have a stash of 110 film in the freezer, really ought to be using it. Also have tons of 120 and 220 (have Yashicamats, Minolta Autocords, a Rolleiflex, several Mamiya TLRs (with bunch of lenses for them), and more folders than I can count (favorites being the Russian Moskva models).

And then there's the Kodak Medalists... BEST lens ever made in that format range (Hasselblad used it for their first model). Sadly, the Medalist is as unwieldy as imaginable, and, requires 620 film (i.e., respool 120 film onto 620 spools). Some day I'll mill out one of my Medalists to accept 120 rolls. Or, I'll die of old age. The race is on! ;)

"zooming in on MOON Rocks and junk"

No, really, I don't want to be zooming in on people's junk.

kogaku wrote:Good grief, are people spoiled today or what?

When I started with photography (circa 1960 or thereabouts), I used Kodachrome (ASA 10!) with an F. 3.5 lens -- which, somehow, I was able to use handheld, sans flash, and got excellent results.

Later on, I used Tri X Pan (ASA 400) for what was then called "available light" work, again, handheld, no flash, blah blah blah.

Lest this be construed as bragging, I point out that this sort of work was FAR from exceptional -- it was simply how we ALL worked with our gear, and got excellent results.

I'll close by pointing out the irony of the complaints of the slowness of this camera's lens, which, at something ("35mm equivalent") over 600mm is bloody FAST. A 35mm camera with a 600mm lens is going to be HUGE by comparison, and MUCH more expensive, and most likely a LOT slower (in terms of lens speed).

I've had a lot of fun with people, giving them 8x10 - 16x20 prints ("silver" prints, i.e., digital images printed on chromogenic photographic paper) I shot with my wife's shirt-pocket sized Olympus Stylus 300 (3.2MP). Much better image quality than most of the "pro gear" work I've seen.

In the vast majority of situations, it's the photographer, NOT the camera, that really matters.

Thanks for providing some perspective. Much appreciated!

I really feel the need to mention that Kodak still makes film and they intend to keep making film because believe it or not in today's digital world film is where Kodak makes the bulk of it's profits.

I just shot two rolls of Kodak film this weekend.

As for the Kodak digital camera, this may come as a shock to a lot of people, but Kodak has been having these thinks made by third party vendors for years.

Long live Film!

kogaku wrote:And then there's the Kodak Medalists... BEST lens ever made in that format range (Hasselblad used it for their first model). Sadly, the Medalist is as unwieldy as imaginable, and, requires 620 film (i.e., respool 120 film onto 620 spools). Some day I'll mill out one of my Medalists to accept 120 rolls. Or, I'll die of old age. The race is on! ;)

My father has an old Kodak TLR that uses 620 film, and I've got a Kodak Tourist II that uses it. I've been tempted to find a spool to rewind some 120, but not tempted enough to actually do it.

I'm sure the bellows of the Tourist is full of pinholes, anyway.

crashck wrote:Would this work well for me when I go on a trip to Italy? I would be taking pictures of a lot of random things outdoors and things indoors in churches and such. If you wouldn't recommend this camera, then what camera should I use?

Thanks for being one of the FEW who consider what kind of photos they plan to take BEFORE they buy the camera! I'm the author of the book, "How To Use The Digital Camera You Just Bought" and I've seen too many people buy a camera with (for example) a "slow" or small maximum aperture lens and try to take indoor action sport shots. It's doesn't work that way, just as it didn't work with film cameras.

Outside, you'll be fine. Inside, you'll need to steady the camera on something, assuming you can't use flash. Flash will be fine for snapshots of friends at a table drinking espresso,but not for lighting up some cathedral. Cameras that work great in available light without support cost a LOT more.

The lens range range will be nice, and you can always find AA batteries when needed. Be sure to READ THE MANUAL and get familiar with the controls BEFORE you leave! Good luck!

Krisis86 wrote: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?

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? ;)

NewMaster wrote: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.

Everyone seems to forget that f/stops matter! Most consumer cameras start out at f/4.5 and quickly max out at F/5.6, especially when zoomed. I don't care what sensor you have, even at ISO 1600 it will not allow a fast enough shutter speed to freeze indoor or low-light subjects. This is basic photography theory, regardless of digital or film!

CharlesP2009 wrote:I've found that Energizer's lithium AAs would last for months of casual use in my Kodak Z710. Wal-Mart often sold the 4-pack for $7.00 and you'd do even better buying online. Not a bad expense IMO.

Charles is right. Lithium AA batteries will last for months in a camera. Also, you can get Duracell 'precharged' AA's and charger (get 3 sets of AA's) and they last a long time and don't loose juice like other rechargeable when you store them for months. They cost more upfront, but save you a ton of money in a year, plus they recharge in 15 minutes!

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).

Off topic: Google the Club 100 (Tandy user group) and be amazed that someone has made a gadget that lets you save your text files from the Tandy 100 to an SD card!! Yes, this is in 2012.

crashck wrote:Would this work well for me when I go on a trip to Italy? I would be taking pictures of a lot of random things outdoors and things indoors in churches and such. If you wouldn't recommend this camera, then what camera should I use?

It won't take photo's of Italians .. kidding

kogaku wrote:


"I still have a stash of 110 film in the freezer, really ought to be using it. Also have tons of 120 and 220 (have Yashicamats, Minolta Autocords, a Rolleiflex, several Mamiya TLRs (with bunch of lenses for them), and more folders than I can count (favorites being the Russian Moskva models)."

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.

craigthom wrote:My father has an old Kodak TLR that uses 620 film, and I've got a Kodak Tourist II that uses it. I've been tempted to find a spool to rewind some 120, but not tempted enough to actually do it.

I'm sure the bellows of the Tourist is full of pinholes, anyway.

It's been a while since I've done it, and I'm tired, so I'm brainfarting the nomenclature. Anyway, do a web search and you'll find some tips on fixing the pinholes using some gummy stuff with fine carbon dust ("candle black" or some such) you mix in. A test roll before serious use is beneficial.

A tiny LED flashlight inside the camera (with camera closed), in a darkened room (i.e., bathroom, lights out, towel under door, and a few minutes for your night vision to kick in) will help you find the location of the pinholes.

(You'll of course want to be careful not to slam the flashlight into the lens's rear element while moving the camera around looking for light showing through pinholes.)

There is an esthetic aspect to traditional photography that digital will never ("IMO") be able to approach. (And FWIW I'm not an anti-digital bigot -- I own a few digitals, including a Kodak P&S (the one with the Schneider zoom lens, bought here), and a Pentax K100D (6MP DSLR, also bought here, which I like because (among other reasons) it has a standard K-mount (I have many K-mount lenses) AND can accept Pentax screw-mount lenses (of which I have even more), via an adapter (which provides true infinity focus WITHOUT needing any "corrective glass" in the adapter).

These days a "mere" 6MP will doubtless evoke giggles from the pee-nut gallery, but since I find that a 3.2 MP P&S can produce razor sharp 8x10s (and MUCH better than "OK"-grade 16x20 prints), I'm satisfied with it.

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.

I have a local camera shop that processes 120.

I have no experience with them, but a quick search shows several companies that do processing by mail.

I am biased, since it's all I have, but I love taking pictures with my YashicaMAT (which I got on ebay several years ago). I love the feel of the winding lever, and I love looking at the image on the viewfinder.

You can just eyeball outside shots or use a light meter, but that's fun, too.

It would be kinda cool if we could have some comments about the product that is being offered for sale here...

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.

My apprehensions about battery guzzling have been assuaged by the fact that I have 60 AA Fuji batteries from a previous Woot sale. When all else fails, wait for a Woot?

My experience with 5 or 6 previous Kodaks is that they eat batteries at an absolutely alarming rate when compared to other cameras. Even the fixed (not motorized) lens cameras of theirs are battery abusers.. That said, the [Price vs. Zoom] ratio of this offer is sucking me in. M-m-must resist B-B-buying........

I have an older Kodak Easyshare like this one...Z-something-or-other from 2006. It is still my favorite digital camera that I use frequently. It is a 12x optical zoom.

The AA batteries make things much easier. We keep rechargeables in it, but it is nice to have a backup plan.

I am tempted to buy one though I don't really need it.

Here's the snapsort pages on the camera: http://snapsort.com/cameras/Kodak-Z5120

It ranks 27 of 33 in a ranking of similar cameras. If you go to the specs page, it has all the various tech details.

It's really weird that this model isn't offered at any major retailers, and so consumer reviews are almost nonexistent. The previous model has mixed reviews at Amazon.

It's a Kodak. N'uff said. Move on to the next brand.

I have an older model of this camera (3 years ago). I bought this camera because of the great specs and fair price. After taking pictures with this camera for just over a year the flash stopped firing. I contacted Kodak about this issue and they sent me software and told me to push it to the camera. The sofware did not fix the flash on my camera but it did update my menu and options. I re-contacted Kodak and I was told that I would need to have it repaired. The repair costs were more than I paid for the camera brand new.
Still takes great daytime pics.

Just wanted to tell this story as a warning of reliability with these cameras. I would never buy another one.

How does this camera compare to the Kodak Easy share Z712 IS 7.1 MP and 12X optical zoom?

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.

How is the shutter lag?

radi0j0hn wrote:Everyone seems to forget that f/stops matter! Most consumer cameras start out at f/4.5 and quickly max out at F/5.6, especially when zoomed. I don't care what sensor you have, even at ISO 1600 it will not allow a fast enough shutter speed to freeze indoor or low-light subjects. This is basic photography theory, regardless of digital or film!

It isn't lost on me. No one is going to take a photo of a pet or child running around the house using the 676mm telephoto end equivalent this camera has. Besides, I've already said this camera would be no good at indoor action.

am I the only one that can't find this anywhere? I see the z5110 on amazon, but I don't see the z5120 anywhere to see a price comparison.

No viewfinder, no deal.

radi0j0hn wrote:I'm the author of the book, "How To Use The Digital Camera You Just Bought"

It's quite distasteful that you trot this out every time a camera comes up on Woot!

NewMaster wrote:It's quite distasteful that you trot this out every time a camera comes up on Woot!

On the Woot Comment Scale that's pretty low on the annoyance list.

The same questions asked over and over again by people who can't be bothered to read previous comments are worse, and there are a lot of them for this product.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears there is no viewfinder on this camera. I cannot get past my need to compose my shots directly via my eyeball and not on an LCD screen.

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

The AA isn't a total turn off. I have the version before this one, I can't tell you how many times my battery died; missed out on some good pictures. Lithiums would do okay, expensive though.

Good zoom quality. Even pores are largely visible then!