Previous page Next page

Kodak Pixpro S-1 First Impressions Review

June 2014 | By Andy Westlake


Preview based on a production Kodak Pixpro S-1 with early production lenses

Kodak is arguably the most famous brand name of all in photography, at least in the Western world. But the company responsible for such iconic products as the Box Brownie and Kodachrome (and even the world's first digital camera in 1975) ultimately failed to manage the transition from film to digital, and ended up exiting the consumer imaging business altogether in 2013. The name itself has been licensed by JK Imaging Ltd, which has been quietly selling compact cameras under the Kodak brand for the past year or so, mainly long-range superzooms. But now it's got more ambitious, and has introduced its first interchangeable-lens camera: the Micro Four Thirds Pixpro S-1.

The S-1 is an entry-level model that's designed to attract budding photographers who are buying their first system camera. This places it in essentially the same bracket as cameras like the Olympus PEN E-PL5 and Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF6, which means it has some pretty strong competition. It follows a very similar design template, too, with a relatively compact, flat-body design and a tilting rear screen. There's no flash built-in, but the company supplies a small unit that slides on to the hot shoe and is charged from the camera. One notable feature is that, like the Olympus PENs, it features in-body image stabilization.

Kodak Pixpro S-1 key features:

  • 16MP Four Thirds CMOS sensor
  • ISO 200-12800 + Auto
  • 3.0" 920k dot 4:3 tilting LCD (no touchscreen)
  • Approx 5 fps continuous shooting (JPEG only)
  • 1920 x 1080 Full HD movie recording at 30 fps; built-in stereo microphones
  • In-body sensor shift image stabilization
  • DNG format Raw file recording
  • Three customizable function buttons
  • Built-in Wi-Fi for easy image sharing, and remote control by smartphone or tablet
  • Micro Four Thirds lens mount
  • 12-45mm f/3.5-6.3 and 42.5-160mm f/3.9-5.9 lenses; 400mm F6.7 'Fieldscope' lens
  • Available in black or white (each with matching lenses)
  • USB battery charging (no external charger included)

The S-1's headline spec sheet is perfectly competent, if not obviously exciting. It has a 16MP Four Thirds sensor with an ISO 200-12800 sensitivity range, and can record Full HD movies at 30fps. Like most new cameras these days it includes built-in Wi-Fi, offering both remote control from a smartphone or tablet, and easy image transfer to the connected device for sharing. Delve a little deeper, though, and the S-1 includes a few interesting-looking features that you might not necessarily expect from a camera at this level:

  • 360° 'scan panorama'
  • Intervalometer for time-lapse shooting
  • In-camera Full HD time lapse movie recording
  • High Dynamic Range shooting (JPEG only, 2 levels)
  • Kodak film emulation 'Picture Effects' (Ektachrome, Kodachrome, Kodacolor)

At the moment we don't have a definitive price, but we're led to believe that the S-1 will be very competitive with its most obvious rivals. If it manages to deliver a solid feature set at a tempting price point, then it might attract existing Micro Four Thirds looking for a backup camera, as well as new users.

Lenses and accessories

Here's the Pixpro S-1 with its little hotshoe-mounted P10 flash unit, and the SZ ED 12-45mm f/3.5-6.3 AF zoom mounted. The SZ ED 42.5-160mm f/3.9-5.9 AF telezoom is at the right, with the SL 400mm F6.7 Fieldscope lens at the back.

The 12-45mm gives a 24-90mm equivalent angle of view, which is unusually wide-ranging for a 'kit' zoom. It's relatively large though; despite having a retracting design, it's about 63mm / 2.5" long when packed. This looks like a possible disadvantage when considering the current fashion for compact kit zooms such as the Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 14-42mm F3.5-5.6 EZ, Panasonic Lumix G Vario HD 12-32mm F3.5-5.6 OIS, or Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ; it certainly makes the camera/lens combination that bit less portable.

The telezoom offers an 85-320mm equivalent range, and like the 12-45mm, it uses a near-silent internal focus mechanism. Both lenses are decidedly lightweight (~170g for the 12-45mm, and ~200g for the 42.5-160mm), with extensive use of plastics in their construction, including the mounts. This does mean that the camera and twin-lens kit is easy to carry around all day without stressing your shoulder.

The 400mm F6.7 is something of an oddity. It's a simple fixed-aperture manual focus design, and focuses down to about 9m/ 30 ft. It has a rotating tripod collar, reflecting the fact that at 800mm equivalent, it's not very practical to shoot hand-held (merely aiming it accurately is a trial). Users on a very tight budget may appreciate the chance to experiment with it, but on the whole it offers more novelty value than genuine photographic usefulness.

Micro Four Thirds lens system compatibility

The S-1 uses a standard Micro Four Thirds mount, which means that it's fully compatible with a wide range of existing lenses from Olympus and Panasonic, along with third-party manufacturers such as Sigma and Samyang. In the picture above it has the Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH mounted, with the Samyang 7.5mm F3.5 UMC Fisheye MFT and Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm f/1.8 alongside. We've used all of these lenses on the S-1, along with other Olympus and Panasonic optics, and it works just fine.

This ability to work with probably the best-developed of all of the mirrorless lens systems is a serious bonus - almost any kind of optic imaginable is already available for the camera (click here for a list), including some very nice, and relatively inexpensive fast primes. Note though that the Micro Four Thirds standard doesn't extend beyond the lenses; the S-1 isn't compatible with other accessories from Olympus or Panasonic, including (perhaps surprisingly) their flash system.

Color options and pricing

JK Imaging tells us that the Pixpro S-1 will be available in white or black, either body-only or in a twin-lens kit. Pricing is still to be confirmed, but should be very competitive with similarly-specified entry-level mirrorless cameras.


If you're new to digital photography you may wish to read the Digital Photography Glossary before diving into this article (it may help you understand some of the terms used).

Conclusion / Recommendation / Ratings are based on the opinion of the reviewer, you should read the ENTIRE review before coming to your own conclusions.

We recommend to make the most of this review you should be able to see the difference (at least) between X,Y and Z and ideally A,B and C.

This article is Copyright 2014 and may NOT in part or in whole be reproduced in any electronic or printed medium without prior permission from the author.

Previous page Next page
11
I own it
12
I want it
6
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 179
12
solarider
By solarider (1 month ago)

Hopefully the quality of the internal workings is as high as the competitors. To save money, that would seem highly unlikely. Plus the know how they are up against is considerable. None the less, will be curious to see how well they do.

0 upvotes
RecklessAbandonArteests
By RecklessAbandonArteests (1 month ago)

It will be interesting to see how JK Imaging does with this.

In 2014 the Kodak name only has relevance with non-digital baby boomers (non-digital baby boomers includes camera users who grew up with Kodak film cameras in the 1950s forward).

Users born in the 1980s forward are using smartphones to take pics. Just as cell phones killed the wristwatch market, cell cameras are killing off interest in dedicated digital cameras. Moreover, for most users cell cameras take acceptable pics and video for viewing on the medium of choice, TFT monitors.

Kodak cameras are going to be designed, manufactured, and marketed to the baby boomer market. The cameras will always be simple to operate. I suspect JK Imaging is paying a paltry sum to use the Kodak name on its products, and the Company will take baby steps selling Kodak-branded cameras.

That's not to say this is a foolish endeavor. The baby boomer market is HUGE. And the point & shoot crowd has lots of cash to spend on cameras like this.

0 upvotes
Tan68
By Tan68 (4 weeks ago)

"...Just as cell phones killed the wristwatch market, cell cameras are killing off interest in dedicated digital cameras. "

This is typically pointed out. No doubt cell phones take some camera sales. But only where useability overlap. There is a gray area of benefits v. diminishing returns and the choice is between cell phone or point and shoot.

By time a camera like this (or any similar) is considered, the cell phone really isn't a contender. It simply isn't considered by people in the market for a camera like this. They don't overlap. Aren't close enough in performance. Whichever.

A cell phone may be considered as a backup for a person that uses this camera, who knows.

I think you skipped a generation.

0 upvotes
Bhima78
By Bhima78 (4 weeks ago)

Cell phones aren't competition for our m43's cameras yet, but I suspect in under 10 years they might be.

0 upvotes
wkay
By wkay (1 month ago)

the high iso performance seems a little to good?

0 upvotes
Mellowmark
By Mellowmark (1 month ago)

UK price: Kodak Pixpro S-1 price: £349 with a single lens, £449-£499 for the twin lens pack (source T3.com review).

Perhaps £300 body only (guess) if that option is available?

0 upvotes
princewolf
By princewolf (1 month ago)

Now that it's out of the hands of the original Kodak, there is some chance it might actually be good. Bad memories about digital Kodaks before.

0 upvotes
steve from indy
By steve from indy (1 month ago)

with a used Oly PM-1 body going for $100 U.S.( i own a PM-2) it faces stiff competion for sure. the time lapse features make it very appealing to me though

1 upvote
blkduck
By blkduck (1 month ago)

Try to remember that when I worked in the business the ONLY film you could sell was Kodachrome. I still think in Kodachrome at 80 years. I started with Kodachrome ASA 10. I will not mention what all the E-3,4,6s have done to "color".

0 upvotes
joyclick
By joyclick (1 month ago)

If IQ is good enough I'll buy the cheapo.Why pay exorbitant sums to the big daddies?

2 upvotes
Briansdad1
By Briansdad1 (1 month ago)

Hi, Joyclick, havent seen you around lately. Happy photoinf.
Bill

0 upvotes
joyclick
By joyclick (1 month ago)

Hi,
Thanks

Have been busy these days.I just had my 60th birthday.So I have joined a computer hardware and networking course and plan to learn chip level motherboard,laptop,cellphone,LCD monitor.cctv,printer etc repair course !
The weather here in the desert is touching 46 to 50 degrees Centigrade and for now photography passion is on hold

0 upvotes
panpen
By panpen (1 month ago)

Whenever I hear Kodak, I think Walmart.
Super cheap, crappy stuff for $5 per hour McDonalds workers.
Match Kodak with a Blackberry phone and the whole neighborhood will laugh at you.

1 upvote
Harry Adam
By Harry Adam (1 month ago)

JK Imaging is one company - selling cameras under the famous brand name, but the consumer imaging business - still making print paper and providing kiosks for prints - plus the document imaging business are now British - called Kodak Alaris and is wholly owned by the UK Kodak Pension fund, as a settlement in the bankruptcy of Eastman Kodak. The Kodak Limited (UK) pension fund were the major creditor by some huge margin (2.3 billion dollars). Eastman Kodak came out of Chapter 11 through this deal and are now a business to business company serving the printing industry. They are no longer involved in photography.

0 upvotes
Sir Corey of Deane
By Sir Corey of Deane (1 month ago)

And expanding into China!

http://wxxinews.org/post/kodak-alaris-expands-china

0 upvotes
spikey27
By spikey27 (1 month ago)

Whew, you had me worried there for a moment.

At first I thought "Has Kodak - the into digital photography company with a great portfolio of useful patents that sold off everything and became NOT in the same business - now become an 'into' again?"

Because if they had reentered that market, and were likely paying for the use of what used to be their own patents, woe be unto them. And to anyone buying their cameras because of the uncertainty over whether they would go away again because of incompetence and mismanagement at the highest level.

Perhaps the greatest challenge the new guys will face is casting off the taint of the corporation's past.

Best wishes to them.

0 upvotes
herebefore
By herebefore (1 month ago)

If its cheap enough, I may get one just to have an M43 camera I can use with one of my tablets for remote shooting.

I find that shooting small children it is sometimes beneficial not to have someone directly behind the camera. Same for shooting Babies, some pets, and some wildlife

2 upvotes
Sudo Nimh
By Sudo Nimh (1 month ago)

I'm impressed and a bit surprised by the innovative features in this camera. It's good to add diversity to the Micro Four Thirds gene pool.

Some of the sample photos seemed to be balanced to the warm side. Yellowish greens are a pet peeve of mine, but maybe that's how the leaves looked that day. I'd be interested in an Imaging Resource kind of analysis of the camera's color accuracy.

3 upvotes
AngryCorgi
By AngryCorgi (2 months ago)

That fieldscope is gauranteed to be poop in terms of IQ. Like a $50 ebay "telephoto lens".

0 upvotes
Sir Corey of Deane
By Sir Corey of Deane (1 month ago)

It'll probably be good enough for social media and 6x4s.

2 upvotes
AngryCorgi
By AngryCorgi (1 month ago)

6x4s?? Low standard there. Yeah, probably....same standard we hold entry-level P&S super-zooms to.

0 upvotes
deep7
By deep7 (1 month ago)

"Guaranteed"?? By whom? What tosh. It could be great or it could be mediocre but it's unlikely to be "poop". A completely unsubstantiated statement.

1 upvote
Sir Corey of Deane
By Sir Corey of Deane (2 months ago)

If this camera is ever available in the UK, and if its price quickly plunges like the Pixpro AZ521 which is now £100 cheaper, then it will surely sell. Apparently, the AZ521 is selling quite well.

0 upvotes
svesi
By svesi (2 months ago)

Especially in Europe, Kokak is not renowned for it's cameras.

0 upvotes
Rainer2022
By Rainer2022 (2 months ago)

Especially in Germany, Kokak is not renowned for it's cameras. It's just the maker of Kodachrome and other films...
In Germany or Europe the price tag will be the only argument to buy this one. And people who are looking at the price tag, will get themselves no system camera. :-(

1 upvote
achim k
By achim k (2 months ago)

That is not true! I know Kodak cameras since the fifties when I was born! Remember Instamatic Cameras? Everyone had one.

2 upvotes
tedolf
By tedolf (2 months ago)

Strange, the Retinas were made in Germany and were excellent cameras.

Tedolph

4 upvotes
RDMPhotos
By RDMPhotos (2 months ago)

I certainly will not buy the camera , not even as a back up µ4/3 camera, Since my flashes or other accessories will not work with it.
NOW the lenses are a Different story .. all 3 look like something that I would like to have, if they are priced right.

Comment edited 36 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
robjons
By robjons (2 months ago)

Great memories? Kodak? All I remember is the frustration of not feeling free to experiment or even bracket because of the high price of film and processing. Maybe US$7.50 (about $33 today!) for both, for 36 frames in the mid-70's for what was basically a bulk commodity.
I hated them and their dominance (like I hate Gillette now :).
Hope this camera does well, but good riddance to the traditional film behemoth.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
zcello
By zcello (2 months ago)

Kodak was a premium brand with lots of great memory to me, until now. It seems more like a 3rd class supermarket brand.

Comment edited 47 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
jamesm007
By jamesm007 (2 months ago)

I started with Kodak Bridge Cameras. So I have a like for them. The Kodak P880 had superb color accuracy (Imaging Resource) and was an alternative to what was then dSLRs over $1000. So it did not have those punchy consumer colors.

Subjectively and Pro test (IR) showed saturation at about 6% over and hues were the most accurate measured at that time, at IR at around ~3.5%. That is equal or beats a lot of dSLRs. Another Kodak know how is WB.

Take a look at the WB of these pics. The reds, whites and other colors are near perfect or at least not pushed hard. Hues are excellent as well. Time may tell if I am right or wrong.

Not sure if everyone realizes color is as important as sharpness. Look at all the color profiles we have. No one knew the science of color better than Kodak.

I am going out out on a limb by saying this camera has the accurate Kodak colors. Not the punchy consumer Kodak colors. Which makes this a very good camera and or interesting camera!

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
tedolf
By tedolf (2 months ago)

A friend of mine that I went to Italy with brought her super cheap Kodak video cam that had a stills mode. The color balance and WB in particular were better than on my E-pl1.

TEdolph

1 upvote
locke_fc
By locke_fc (2 months ago)

I quite agree. There's something pleasing about those colours.

2 upvotes
Tan68
By Tan68 (2 months ago)

Well, I hope it does as well. But, I wonder how much Kodak engineering will be involved. It is a licensed name now.

Still, it sounds fun. Why not.

0 upvotes
DaytonR
By DaytonR (2 months ago)

Oh wow ! What a nice camera , I wish Kodak had released cameras like this a few years back when I was looking to upgrade from my compact ! Its good to see Kodak still in the game , well done Kodak !!

3 upvotes
Tord S Eriksson
By Tord S Eriksson (2 months ago)

You are joking, I persume!

The camera has nothing to do with Kodak but the sticker, as Kodak as a company is totally gone, dead, and buried six feet under!

Looks OK, though. And hopefully it will be a success!

0 upvotes
tedolf
By tedolf (2 months ago)

Kodak is still around, just not in the consumer photography business.

Tedolph

6 upvotes
Tan68
By Tan68 (2 months ago)

Tord, that's brutal. What if this camera carries the spirit of Kodak. With the brutal reality you deliver, the beast has no chance. Let the animal breathe and enjoy the sunshine. If it turns mean, we can kill it again later. For now, let people enjoy their Kodak. (shhhhh)

3 upvotes
elliot dennis
By elliot dennis (1 month ago)

In my life I always felt the pictures from Kodak gear had something going for them. It is the color and WB. So precise. It's shameful the company went south. The big bosses alway got the big bonuses even when the company was losing money from their ridiculous business decisions. Hope they resurrect themselves.

2 upvotes
Mike Yorkshire
By Mike Yorkshire (2 months ago)

This camera will stand or fall on its pricing.

When they say "keen" they had better mean "REALLY keen" to make an impact. The Kodak branding has little meaning to the teen generation and little significance to anyone who can see it isn't really a Kodak.

It could be a brilliant move, or it might just be in your camera stores Bargain Bucket by next Spring.

0 upvotes
kscharf
By kscharf (2 months ago)

That 400mm lens reminds me of my Spiratone 400mm F6.3 "T" mount, which I use on my Panasonic G3 camera with a suitable adapter. I previously used that lens on a Nikon 35mm SLR. It's too bad Kodak didn't make the camera fully M4/3 compatible, I use an Olympus flash unit on my G3 with no problems. I got the Olympus flash used at a bargin. If they come out with some nice glass under the Kodak name, perhaps Olympus and Lumix users will be able to use them, though the lenses will probably lack built in IS.

Comment edited 27 seconds after posting
1 upvote
maxnimo
By maxnimo (2 months ago)

In my opinion this camera is an absolute gem - a breath of fresh air! It's super cute, impressive image quality, and everything a young photographer would need. And some of those images look better than kit-lens equipped Nikons and Canons.

Three thumbs up from me.

7 upvotes
LarryLatchkey
By LarryLatchkey (2 months ago)

The first sentence represents quite an America-centric perspective ;)

2 upvotes
LarryLatchkey
By LarryLatchkey (2 months ago)

Okay okay, it may not be THAT unreasonable a statement...

2 upvotes
deep7
By deep7 (2 months ago)

It may well have been quite true only ten years ago...

0 upvotes
Turbguy1
By Turbguy1 (2 months ago)

"Arguably"

0 upvotes
skytripper
By skytripper (2 months ago)

Why is DP Review wasting time on this forgettable camera when many cameras that are much more worthy, and much more interesting, sometimes never get reviewed at all?

4 upvotes
0MitchAG
By 0MitchAG (2 months ago)

This is more about the new Kodak and an additional party into the m43 group than just your average low budget mirrorless camera launch... But you obviously didn't realise that. There is plenty of interest in this, and particularly for me and many others, the 400mm scope, which should be nice for birding and better than a mirror lens although one'll need a tripod but for best results that should be expected.

7 upvotes
al_in_philly
By al_in_philly (2 months ago)

I wouldn't buy this camera (nor likely would Skytripper), but that's way besides the point: a new brand entering the market with an ILC camera (and lenses!) aimed at cost conscious entry level consumers is EXTREMELY noteworthy, especially if they can keep the MSRP down significantly below what's been offered before. Right now virtually every camera manufacturer is scrambling at trying to figure out how to attract customers lost to smartphone sales. Perhaps this somewhat fresh approach from JK Imaging/Kodak will stick. That alone is reason enough to run this preliminary review, as well as a full review later.

6 upvotes
deep7
By deep7 (2 months ago)

The sample photos would do justice to quite a few well-fancied cameras. For what is alleged to be a budget camera with kit lenses, they are surprisingly good. Nice sensor, nice processing, good glass. Go "Kodak"!

6 upvotes
aris14
By aris14 (2 months ago)

If pricing is less than 400$ which leaves imo a nice profit then it would be a serious contestant for teenager photographers and people they want to have something Dslr like with descent IQ. Nice headache free tool for in house shooting for creative or web SOHO business. Cute system.

1 upvote
lacikuss
By lacikuss (2 months ago)

Nice!

0 upvotes
pixelcollector
By pixelcollector (2 months ago)

Is the tripod socket made of plastic?

0 upvotes
xoio
By xoio (2 months ago)

LOL, Bitchy! :-)

4 upvotes
pixelcollector
By pixelcollector (2 months ago)

Bitchy? Serious question. It looks like plastic in the photo but before trashing the thing I'd like to be sure that it is.

0 upvotes
Kipplemaster
By Kipplemaster (2 months ago)

Small cameras like this should have USB charging. I believe this is the only m43 camera which does, which would be a very big selling point for me. I like DNG RAW too.

1 upvote
deep7
By deep7 (2 months ago)

Wouldn't that be a giant pain? It would mean you couldn't use your camera while the battery was charging, even if you had spare batteries. No thanks! I had a Sony V3 which charged in-camera and it was quite frustrating.

1 upvote
Kipplemaster
By Kipplemaster (2 months ago)

You can get separate chargers (ideally one would be included although admittedly that isn't usually the case). What is a giant pain is travelling with a bunch of different chargers or being away from home with a flat camera battery and no way of charging it because you didn't bring the proprietary plastic brick with you.

1 upvote
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (2 months ago)

@deep7 USB charging does have the advantage that you can use those standard battery powered phone chargers tho

1 upvote
deep7
By deep7 (2 months ago)

A "giant pain .. travelling with a bunch of different chargers"? I travel a lot for work and don't find that. Laptop charger, maybe one for my phone (or I charge it off the laptop but, unlike my camera, I can still use it while it's charging). For a short trip, I don't even take a camera charger, just a spare battery, though modern camera chargers are just not that big anyway. No pain involved.

Each to his own but to say a camera "should" have USB charging is very narrow! You still need your power supply and cable...

1 upvote
Klarno
By Klarno (2 months ago)

Sony E-mount cameras, all the way up to the A7 line, have USB charging. I think it's potentially very useful-- I carry USB battery backups with me when backpacking, and I use them I use to keep devices like my phone (that I use as a GPS) charged. Plus, USB charging means I can top up the charge while driving from location to location.

Comment edited 36 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Greynerd
By Greynerd (2 months ago)

If DPR was a car forum you would get people posting how only one door is needed in the car as they never carry passengers so they cannot see the point of all the other doors.
At least USB charging gives you a choice of in camera or out of camera.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Leandros S
By Leandros S (2 months ago)

The telezoom seems sufficiently sharp. Not convinced of the kit zoom yet.

0 upvotes
billybeek
By billybeek (2 months ago)

Good Luck O Yellow Father

0 upvotes
tpani
By tpani (2 months ago)

forpetessake: You got your math completely wrong. 1-stop difference to f/6.3 does not make f/12.6. Silly you!

2 upvotes
samfan
By samfan (2 months ago)

No, but 2-stop does.

4 upvotes
forpetessake
By forpetessake (2 months ago)

"12-45mm f/3.5-6.3" -- really? Making such a dim lens with such a small sensor makes no sense. It's f/12.6 FF equivalent! Even the old film days P&S Olympus soap boxes were brighter. This Chinese company is nuttier than a fruitcake.

1 upvote
samfan
By samfan (2 months ago)

Not really. In the film era, small zoom compacts easily hit f/11 or f/16 around 100mm.

But sure, f/6.3 is sad. 10 years ago I expected we'll be getting more f/4 zooms, or f/2.8 on 4/3. Instead f/5.6 is standard and f/6.3 is becoming another standard. I guess we should expect a f/5.6-8 kit zoom any time soon now.

3 upvotes
deep7
By deep7 (2 months ago)

What rubbish. You would have to stop your 35mm format lens down to f12.6 to get the same depth of field but you can shoot this zoom at f6.3 quite happily, which is not anywhere near as dim as f12.6. It's perfectly usable in many situations, especially with the decent sensor and built in stabilisation. If you want faster, m4/3 provides a huge range of options, duh. That's the point of interchangeable lenses!

5 upvotes
mister_roboto
By mister_roboto (2 months ago)

equivalent dof does not equal exposure. There is no film/sensor size format switch on the side of a light meter.

2 upvotes
rpm40
By rpm40 (2 months ago)

Zzzzzz..... We all know your crusade. If equivalent DOF is your fetish, a smaller sensor camera with kit lens are not for you. Move along...

6 upvotes
forpetessake
By forpetessake (2 months ago)

OMG, the forum is filled with fruitcakes :)
Good for Kodak, they can make money of the ignoramuses.
" There's a sucker born every minute " -- David Hannum

1 upvote
Marty4650
By Marty4650 (2 months ago)

forpetessake.....

You seem to be expecting quite a lot from a budget priced camera.

Do you realize Olympus sells a Olympus Micro Zuiko Digital ED 12-50mm f/3.5-6.3 EZ lens for $499? The exact same speed of this lens, but a tad shorter in reach.

And they also make a 12-40mm f/2,8 for around $1,000. But that probably isn't fast enough for you either.

They also make a 14-35mm f/2.0 four thirds lens, which can be used on this camera with an adapter. But it weighs two pounds, and costs over $2,400.

Comment edited 22 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
spikey27
By spikey27 (1 month ago)

Discussing the difference in usefulness of numerically high f/stops for anything except bright daylight shooting somehow reminds me of the 10-stop chart in the doctor's office that he points to and asks "What is your pain level?"

BTW, there's an excellent article elsewhere on this site regarding equivalent EVERYTHING.

Comment edited 40 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Foggy8
By Foggy8 (2 months ago)

The Kodak S-1 looks a bit like the Nikon J series. Too bad Nikon did not market this camera with MFT mount and sensor instead of the J series which has limited lens choices and a smaller sensor.

3 upvotes
GodSpeaks
By GodSpeaks (2 months ago)

Interesting camera. I will be real interested to see what it actually sells for (not MSRP).
Sony pulled the same, no raw with wifi remote, stunt.

1 upvote
iLandPhotos
By iLandPhotos (2 months ago)

picture quality is not bad too IMHO :)))

3 upvotes
iLandPhotos
By iLandPhotos (2 months ago)

wow i think this camera has some things my nex6 should have like time lapse, in body stabilization and a wider range of lenses from other companies with AF functions without an adapter. not bad for their first entry I think :)))

6 upvotes
Robbster
By Robbster (2 months ago)

LOVE another entry into m43 bodies and lenses, overall very good for the format.

2 upvotes
arieswar
By arieswar (2 months ago)

back in 2006 i was a fan of Kodak IQ and colors, hope it'll shine again :)

3 upvotes
rpm40
By rpm40 (2 months ago)

Kodak did have nice colors, and I enjoyed the output of my earlier Olympus cam with the Kodak sensor (e500). Since then, I fell like Oly and Fuji have the closest jpeg colors, but it's always nice to have another appealing option. I hope the inclusion of the Kodachrome, etc modes means they really will have some of that look!

2 upvotes
J o m s
By J o m s (2 months ago)

I thought IQ is promising. This could be the killer of bridge cams and entry-level mirrorless and DSLR if the price is around 400-500 with dual kit lens. =D

3 upvotes
samfan
By samfan (2 months ago)

I really did not expect it to have in-body IS. For primary Olympus users, this alone makes it a potential better choice of a second body than Panasonic GF series.

It also shows that anyone can have IBIS now. Bummer that the bigger photo (and consumer electronics) companies don't understand that.

Also I really really like the design. It has some classic, no-nonsense feel to it. I imagine it has to be beautiful in black, like some classic 70's primarily chrome cameras in black.

Another thing I did not expect is the offer of body-only options. Also not a sure thing with low-end bodies, and a very smart decision.

Most importantly - yay for cross-company standards! I really don't feel like buying any more camera tech in closed standards.

So, hopefully we'll get another body with EVF and more controls sooner rather than later.

3 upvotes
samfan
By samfan (2 months ago)

Okay, after reading th whole review: too many caveats, not that interesting at the end. Although still a very good first try, compared to how some of the other companies botched their first MILC offerings. Priced accordingly, looks good.

Q for DPR: how did you get the photos with various film emulations since you write it's not possible to use them on an existing image? The images look identical so I'm guessing they're made from one master image.

0 upvotes
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (2 months ago)

To make all the Picture Effects shots look roughly the same, I stood in the same place and pointed the camera in the same direction. I pressed the Fn1 button and changed mode between shots. This actually works! (then again I've had a lot of practice of this sort of thing). But while the images therefore all look similar, they're not identical, which is why this is presented as a table not a rollover.

If I'd been carrying a tripod with me, and that bit of London wasn't absolutely packed with tourists this time of year, I'd have done it properly.

2 upvotes
samfan
By samfan (2 months ago)

Cool. I didn't pixel peep on those pics, they looked identical in thumbnails.

0 upvotes
harley13
By harley13 (2 months ago)

I agree---Price it right it will take over the market as a leader, bottom line picture quality and flexibility for photos.

0 upvotes
tedolf
By tedolf (2 months ago)

If this is priced right, it could be the breakthrough camera that takes the u4/3 mount mainstream.

The low end of the market is were the growth is for lenses, especially cheap prime lenses.

TEdolph

6 upvotes
Lassoni
By Lassoni (2 months ago)

I've yet to see m3/4 to be priced cheap. If something is priced higher than nikon D3300 + 18-55 vr kit, it isn't cheap imo

5 upvotes
rpm40
By rpm40 (2 months ago)

M4/3 bodies are sometimes available under $200, and with a lens under $300. I got an e-pm2 with 2 lenses for $349. I know the d3300 can be cheap, but has it ever been THAT cheap? Close enough, probably, but there are some real bargains to be had in m4/3.

0 upvotes
Craig from Nevada
By Craig from Nevada (2 months ago)

"Pricing is still to be confirmed, but should be very competitive with similarly-specified entry-level mirrorless cameras. "

The price has to be cheap, very cheap, for this to work. Close in terms of price with panny or oly won't make this viable. It needs to compete with disposible cameras.

0 upvotes
PazinBoise
By PazinBoise (2 months ago)

It this is priced around $300 and sold it at box stores (Best Buy, Target, Wal-Mart) and it may be able to take off. Price will determine if this camera is successful, that's why the J series didn't quite take off, it was initially too expensive. Once you get to the $400+ price range uninformed consumers will gravitate towards DSLRs as they equate them with "serious" cameras and "better" pictures. Keep it around $300, tout the fact it has wi-fi, 1080p recording, and a large len system and they should be able to get their target audience to bite. What they also need to do is have pamphlets by their display models that explain with m4/3 is, how big the lens system is, and how its performance will rival entry level DSLRs.

4 upvotes
Ed Chen
By Ed Chen (2 months ago)

Seems that the kodak is larger than the canon eos m an m2.

0 upvotes
bluevaping
By bluevaping (2 months ago)

I like the kit lens idea on this camera. People assume the main advantage with m43 over APSC is smaller lens. But covering a wider range seems like a good idea too.

2 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (2 months ago)

It's a good idea that is already brilliantly executed by Panasonic. That 14-140mm is a 28-280 that is small and sharp.

0 upvotes
bluevaping
By bluevaping (2 months ago)

I was taking about value out of the standard camera box kit. Yeah there are $400+ add on lens you can buy. I was just saying this is smart in this entry level M43's model. Where some people can't justify or know what lens combos to buy yet. They just know it covers more than most standard lens out of the box.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 179
12