Have Kodak just managed to...

[wlachan]

.. for a camera.

It's not, but good designs certainly help, like all other manmade products.
--
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan/

 

[bdery]

Have you got shares in in Kodak?
--
regards

Why so bitter ? Cheer up man.

I enjoy seeing companies trying innovation. If it fails I don't
care as I have no financial interest in them

24 mm wide angle lens

Nikon does it already

Record RAW files and include a hot shoe

nothing new here

KODAK P20 Zoom Flash

Canon has it already

PC sync port for off-camera flash options

Exists since BC, or almost

VGA video at 30 frames per second (Motion JPEG compression) with
the unique ability Use full optical zoom

Canon does it since the S1

Cut, splice and merge clips on the camera

Canon, Casio, and probably everyone else is doing it

RAW file and uniquely embeds a dynamic JPEG

everyone does it

2.5-inch, high-resolution LCD; a 237,000 pixel electronic

high-res is nice, but everyone can do it, it's a matter of price

viewfinder with diopter

everyone does it

556 g and 4.6W x 3.8H x 3.6D in

nothing impressive there

At the price point many want priced at $599 and $499

this exists in many other places

So, what's really new here?

--
bdery

Québec city, Canada
Cool,pix S Q
http://community.webshots.com/user/beder12
http://community.webshots.com/user/beder122
http://greatbern.fotopic.net/

 

[wazza]

.. for a camera.

It's not, but good designs certainly help, like all other manmade
products.

Given it's not yet available to anyone, what about the desing worries you ?

I've yet to hold one so I'm happy to be educated

 

[eric_j_h]

Did I say that? I don't think so. Okay, I think Kodak should make it turd-shaped seeing as how it doesn't matter what it looks like. That would be unique and ground-breaking. Plus I bet your would look good with up close to your face.
--
regards

e

 

[wazza]

So, what's really new here?

--
bdery

you answered your own question by providing a dfft camera for every response and some of them not even correct

and I say again.....I dislike Kodak cameras but I am interested in these two if they deliver at that price point

 

[Bob GB]

design the ugliest looking digital camera to date? I honestly don't
understanding what they are doing - except perhaps accelerating
towards the edge of a large cliff.
e

To me, it seems odd they have a fixed LCD at the back, giving away an obvious flexibility. Otherwise, the price points look interesting, but the prosumer area are somewhat crowded. A closer look at the specs might reveal something.

• regards -

 

[wazza]

Gets nasty in here doesn't it

I'm off back to the Pentax and Pannie forums

 

[wlachan]

Given it's not yet available to anyone, what about the desing
worries you ?

I am not worried. I am simply expressing that it looks ugly, nothing more, nothing less.
--
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan/

 

[wazza]

I am not worried. I am simply expressing that it looks ugly,
nothing more, nothing less.

I have never viewed a camera as "good looking" or "ugly", just a way to capture images (mostly still).

As long as the camera does what I need it to I'm more than happy

What is a "good looking" camera. that thought scares the pants off me

 

[Ian Loveday]

Since you hit on my humorously intended sign-off....

Of course it depends which life ends first. If the camera dies, you get a new one. And anyway, what I really meant is, owning understanding and using a good camera (not necessarily the same one for ever) is a habit you tend to keep for life, once you start.

--
IML

A camera is for life, not just for Christmas.

 

[wlachan]

I don't know about who's first etc, but often a successful product is about a combination of right designs. Being the first might not be so important.
--
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan/

 

[wlachan]

I have never viewed a camera as "good looking" or "ugly", just a
way to capture images (mostly still).
As long as the camera does what I need it to I'm more than happy

Sure, different people, difference preferences. I have no problem with that.

What is a "good looking" camera. that thought scares the pants off me

What's wrong with commenting on the appearance of the cameras, or any manmade products? People often commenting on the appearance of sport cars, why not cameras, or anything else? What if I said it looked great, would you be upset too because I comment on its appearance?
--
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan/

 

[Alfisti]

Until someone addresses the shortfalls of consumer cameras we still won't have a replacement for the DSLR so to speak.

Any prosumer serious about eating into the market share of DSLR's will need ....

• manual focus and zoom rings
• OPTICAL VIEWFINDER
• decent focal lengths ... about 30mm - 300mm
• acceptable ISO1600 and useable ISO800
• quick responsiveness on everything from start uo to shutter lag to saving files
• RAW

Kodak has addressed most of these ... but sadly across two cameras!!! 140mm is just not enough on the 880.

 

[wazza]

What is a "good looking" camera. that thought scares the pants off me

What's wrong with commenting on the appearance of the cameras, or
any manmade products? People often commenting on the appearance of
sport cars, why not cameras, or anything else? What if I said it
looked great, would you be upset too because I comment on its
appearance?
--

I'm not upset at all, I am just intrigued what makes a "good looking" camera in your opinion. Are you saying a camera should be shaped lie a sports car ???

 

[wazza]

Not a bad start though given I was using a DC50 only 7-8 years ago.

I hope the P&S don't try too hard to match DSLR in form - I like them small and light

 

[wlachan]

I'm not upset at all, I am just intrigued what makes a "good
looking" camera in your opinion. Are you saying a camera should be
shaped lie a sports car ???

I used sport car as an example, I have no idea why you think I implied any camera should be shaped like a sport car. As to the appearance of the camera, I am certain many will find it ugly. I am not an expert in this field to explain why however.
--
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan/

 

[DLGW]

.. was the appearance of said camera, calling it ugly.

You then speculated that because said camera was ugly, that Kodaks' business fortunes would continue to decline.

Since all you commented on was purely the ascetic appearence, yeah, you did strongly imply that the visual appearence of the camera was of paramount importance.

 

[wazza]

I used sport car as an example, I have no idea why you think I
implied any camera should be shaped like a sport car.

I don't, that was the only refernece you gave of your idea of "good looking"

As to the
appearance of the camera, I am certain many will find it ugly. I am
not an expert in this field to explain why however.

OK, so it's "ugly" but you don't know why - no worries.

 

[eric_j_h]

.. was the appearance of said camera, calling it ugly.

I stand by that. It is ugly.

You then speculated that because said camera was ugly, that Kodaks'
business fortunes would continue to decline.

I think I'll probably be proved right (but hope I am wrong).

Since all you commented on was purely the ascetic appearence, yeah,
you did strongly imply that the visual appearence of the camera was
of paramount importance.

Not of paramount importance - especially to advanced users/semi-pros. But I don't think that is who Kodak is aiming at. Looks/design are important. It draws people towards a product. Think Apple Macintosh - if it were not so well designed, would they be as popular? If that Kodak camera is sitting on a shelf with a whole lot of other digital cameras, people with no preconceived idea of what they want will ask to look at it.
--
regards

e

 

[wazza]

.. was the appearance of said camera, calling it ugly.

I stand by that. It is ugly.

Describe the features of a "good looking" camera...

I'm serious. I've yet to see a bad or good looking one. I just don't see them that way. What am I missing ?