-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Kodak Gets a Review:
- Thread starter Vinylly
- Start date
J
JamesD2
Guest
I don't give too much credence to this so-called Review. Where it all went south for me was in the following statements:
"but for serious Wildlife and Birds – save up for..."
For serious shots? Seriously? What does that even mean... serious shots? He admits he is not a professional and not making a living from his photos but he still thinks that his bird and wildlife shots could be serious. We're amateurs enjoying photography (well, at least most of us are) and not making a living from our efforts (and a good thing too... LOL). When we start to think of our "work" as "serious", I think we might have gotten on the wrong train. How serious is serious? Is it National Geographic serious? If "serious" is putting our photos on a photo forum and then using a loupe or going to 100% and pixel peeping so we can brag about how sharp our lens is compared to the other guy's... well... I'm not sure that really counts as serious. And so we are advised to save up for a camera that will meet our needs for serious wildlife photography. And just how much do we save up and where does it stop... after we've spent $15,000 and can finally drag all our gear into the blind and wait for the birds to arrive and then show them on YouTube or on dpReview? Is that serious?
And then our intrepid reviewer comes out with this gem:
"Buy one of these for it’s quirkiness and as a challenge, and the camera doesn’t matter if they’re just snaps for one’s own enjoyment or for a laugh (as mine are)...
So... the z990 is a quirky camera that one buys for a laugh or simply for fun and its quirkiness. Ah... I see. So no one owning a Kodak camera could ever be thought to do serious photography much less make a serious photograph.
Frankly, I'm shocked (and dismayed) that this Review was on SteveHuffphoto. I always thought better of his material. Guess I'll have to rethink my initial evaluation.
BTW.. other than a few good portraits and some mediocre travel shots, the review was definitely below grade. I've seen much better reviews from users on Amazon.
--
JamesD
Happy Snappin'
"but for serious Wildlife and Birds – save up for..."
For serious shots? Seriously? What does that even mean... serious shots? He admits he is not a professional and not making a living from his photos but he still thinks that his bird and wildlife shots could be serious. We're amateurs enjoying photography (well, at least most of us are) and not making a living from our efforts (and a good thing too... LOL). When we start to think of our "work" as "serious", I think we might have gotten on the wrong train. How serious is serious? Is it National Geographic serious? If "serious" is putting our photos on a photo forum and then using a loupe or going to 100% and pixel peeping so we can brag about how sharp our lens is compared to the other guy's... well... I'm not sure that really counts as serious. And so we are advised to save up for a camera that will meet our needs for serious wildlife photography. And just how much do we save up and where does it stop... after we've spent $15,000 and can finally drag all our gear into the blind and wait for the birds to arrive and then show them on YouTube or on dpReview? Is that serious?
And then our intrepid reviewer comes out with this gem:
"Buy one of these for it’s quirkiness and as a challenge, and the camera doesn’t matter if they’re just snaps for one’s own enjoyment or for a laugh (as mine are)...
So... the z990 is a quirky camera that one buys for a laugh or simply for fun and its quirkiness. Ah... I see. So no one owning a Kodak camera could ever be thought to do serious photography much less make a serious photograph.
Frankly, I'm shocked (and dismayed) that this Review was on SteveHuffphoto. I always thought better of his material. Guess I'll have to rethink my initial evaluation.
BTW.. other than a few good portraits and some mediocre travel shots, the review was definitely below grade. I've seen much better reviews from users on Amazon.
--
JamesD
Happy Snappin'
Last edited:
chiue
Forum Pro
Thanks for the link. But I don't really get it, he had use the camera for over two years and now post the review, what's the point.
oldshutterbug
Veteran Member
I guess anyone can post a review on anything from a packet of pins to a 4x4 SUV but we don't have to agree with their observations.
This person is obviously a keen snap shooter and I admire him for sharing his thoughts but I doubt he is qualified to give technical expertise on cameras, the important thing is he enjoys his photography and thinks his Kodak is pretty OK.
This person is obviously a keen snap shooter and I admire him for sharing his thoughts but I doubt he is qualified to give technical expertise on cameras, the important thing is he enjoys his photography and thinks his Kodak is pretty OK.
Blackbear
Senior Member
I agree, Dave. This message lays a bit hidden in the story, but he clearly states that. And afa the "limitations" are concerned, every camera has them, moreover every phoptographer has. In this perspective the Z990 doesn't do bad at all. That's also seen from my own perspective as a Z990 user. Still think it's one of Kodak's best, though with a few foibles, and mostly there's a workaround for them. At least I can live with them.......
It's exactly why it is important to KNOW your equipement (and know your own skills ;-) ).--
Mart
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, does not go away.
Kodak DX7590, Z980, P880, C875, P850, M583, P712, V570, DC3400, DC290, DC4800, Z990 MAX.
( Lumix TZ40 my wife)
Last edited:
J
JamesD2
Guest
I agree, Dave. This message lays a bit hidden in the story, but he clearly states that. And afa the "limitations" are concerned, every camera has them, moreover every phoptographer has. In this perspective the Z990 doesn't do bad at all. That's also seen from my own perspective as a Z990 user. Still think it's one of Kodak's best, though with a few foibles, and mostly there's a workaround for them. At least I can live with them.......
photoreddi
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 7,973
- Solutions
- 34
- Reaction score
- 2,821
Yes, his Kodak is pretty OK, but the Z990 has numerous faults. As others have said, all cameras have faults but the Z990's go significantly beyond most other cameras. First, its resolution is far lower than comparable bridge/superzoom cameras. Second, it suffers from pretty severe chromatic aberration when zoomed in to the longest focal lengths both in the center of the frame and in the borders. I know that you abhor pixel peeping but these flaws can be easily seen in the Z990's display, so you don't need to blow them up to 100% on a computer monitor. Wider angle shots look pretty good and don't have these problems. It also has the most baroque playback design I've ever seen, making it difficult at times to locate photos on a memory card that has many photos on it.
This can't be due to a bad sample because I bought two of these actually, more than a month apart. One from B&H and the other from Staples due to it going on sale for a pretty good price at the time. One nice thing I just discovered is that the internal battery does a great job. I had the 4 AA batteries removed for nearly a year and when I put fresh batteries in it, I didn't have to reset the time and date. Here are some photos showing the CA and lack of resolution at long focal lengths.
View attachment 659244
Too much CA (red/purple fringing) on the left side of the photo.
View attachment 659245
More CA in the center (blue) due to inability to handle contrast between hair and shirt.
Comparisons below between Kodak and Fuji, shot at similar focal lengths.
View attachment 659246
View attachment 659247
View attachment 659248
Kodak again showing CA in the center of the frame.
View attachment 659249
Fuji has less CA, more resolution.
It's not just the Fuji, Canon's SX50HS and Nikon's old P510 both produce noticeably better photos than the Z990, they can zoom farther in if needed, and have much more "user friendly" menus.
I know this from personal use, not because I read it in a forum or read it from one of Steve Huff's guest reviewers. That said, his review photos were more than acceptable, some quite nice.
.
I am and I did.
Regards
Attachments
oldshutterbug
Veteran Member
Well spoken Sir, I agree with every point you have made, you are certainly well informed about todays cameras.
--
Regards
Dave
Downunder.
Be who you are, say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
photoreddi
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 7,973
- Solutions
- 34
- Reaction score
- 2,821
Thank you. While looking at the photos in your reply I was horrified to see that the aperture used for the Z990's long focal length photos was f/11.5. That would be more than high enough to produce a lot of diffraction blurring but I went out of my way while using both cameras to make sure that wide apertures were used, so I didn't know how this could have happened. I re-shot the photos and got the same results, even with the second Z990. Huh?
It turns out that at long (and probably at several intermediate focal lengths, when zoomed in using f/5.6 as shown on the LCD) the Z990 stores f/11.5 in the EXIF data. If the aperture is set to f/8, the smallest that can be chosen, it stores f/16.3 in the EXIF data. This abnormally high aperture can be seen while viewing photos on the computer and also when using the Z990's LCD. To your knowledge, has anything like this been reported before with any Kodak camera, not just the Z990?
Blackbear
Senior Member
NO BUG. READ the explanation given by Mike O'Brien!!
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/38927250
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/38942277
Same behaviour on Z980
Stop
--
Mart
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, does not go away.
Kodak DX7590, Z980, P880, C875, P850, M583, P712, V570, DC3400, DC290, DC4800, Z990 MAX.
( Lumix TZ40 my wife)
Last edited:
photoreddi
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 7,973
- Solutions
- 34
- Reaction score
- 2,821
No, what Mike wrote makes sense and is the way most cameras operate, and at first glance the Z990 appears to work the way he describes :
This is exactly what I see with my Z990. When I turn the camera on if it was set to f/2.8, as I zoom in to 840mm, the aperture keeps decreasing until 840mm is reached and then the aperture shows f/5.6 on the LCD, just as Mike described. But if I immediately take a picture, the aperture that is used is probably still f/5.6 (I haven't checked that yet), but the value that the Z990 puts into the EXIF data is f/11.5, which is not an aperture that the Z990 should be able to use.
If I reduce the aperture to f/8 (the minimum) and take a picture, the value stored in the EXIF data is f/16.3. Due to small sensor diffraction blurring, if f/16.3 was actually used, the photo would look horrible, really. Diffraction blurring is such a problem with small sensor cameras that many of them only emulate small apertures by using an internal ND filter.
While the Z990 has it's quirks, image quality has never been faulted and rates very high (for p&s) on Imatest's lines of resolution test:
This is from a comparison of the Canon SX40: "With it is 12 megapixel resolution, you’d suppose that photos taken with the SX40 HS to be specially sharp. Incidentally, I got to recognise when it comes to the Imatest software suite – which may be applied to measure cameras’ performance in terms of effigy sharpness and noise. So here’s what I did – to valuate sharpness, I shot various photos of a test chart and analyzed them using a center-weighted algorithm. The SX40 HS averaged 1,836 lines per picture height, which outperforms the 1,800-line benchmark that qualifies an effigy as being acceptably sharp.
I’ve tried a heap of cameras in the past, including the Kodak EasyShare Max Z990 which packs a 30x zoom lens, records a more or less higher 1,946 lines. So in terms of effigy sharpness, the SX40 HS is not the best – but I think it is other features more than make up for that".
Source: http://hdcameracrews.com/point-and-shoot-digital-cameras/kodak-easyshare-max-z990-12-0-mp-digital/
The image you posted was crap and not representative of the camera..anyone can find a sour image from any camera to try and prove it's bad.
photoreddi
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 7,973
- Solutions
- 34
- Reaction score
- 2,821
I wasn't trying to prove that the Z990 was bad, I was trying to see how well it can do and it failed. Not just one but two, obviously not produced in the same production run and both having quite dissimilar serial numbers. Since both of my Z990s grossly underperform every other bridge camera I own (and that includes quite a number, Canon's SX50HS, Nikon's P510, P520, Fuji's X-S1 and most of its HS##EXR cameras) what would you have me do? Even if Kodak still supported the camera I doubt that there's anything that they could do. It's not like it has a decentered lens. That's not the problem.
I don't doubt the results Imatest produces but I didn't use my Z990 to take pictures of their test charts. I took the kind of photos that most people take. The SX50 produces more CA than the P510, P520 and Fuji's cameras are even more immune from CA (except for the old S100fs) but it doesn't produce nearly as much as the Z990 which does it not just in extremely high contrast areas like bare branches against a bright sky, but with dark hair against a white shirt.
Your link to the hdcameracrews.com review doesn't work on my computer and when I use just "hdcameracrews.com" I get a strange web page that seems to be a camcorder website, has no search feature, but it does have a link to "point and shoot digital cameras". Unfortunately that page only has a link to a review of the "Ge Power Pro X500-bk 16 Mp With 15 X" and when I try to use it, my firewall/AV software reports it with a Malicious URL warning and all it turns out to be is a ad/link to search for the camera on Amazon with a really poor customer review by Mike, below the link. He says that it's his first digital camera, that "The zoom on the X500 is awesome." and that "So far I’ve taken 100+ pictures and the battery is still full on the display."
The review that you read probably wasn't a customer review since Imatest was involved, but so far I'm completely unable to access that Z990 review.
For all I know my Z990 cameras might do as well when tested with Imatest, but for real world subjects in reasonably easy lighting conditions (slightly cloudy with little bright, contrasty sunlight), you're right, the images were pretty crappy, but from your conclusion :
It's hard to see you as anything but a sour fanboy that will only pick and choose what to believe, going so far as to cast aspersions on my motives, that I'm going out of my way to prove that the Z990 is bad because it's easier to shoot the messenger than to believe your eyes. You're just another guy here that's showing that this forum is well suited to the Z990.
Have fun.
No sour fanboy here and why so quick to throw that out? You seem a bit sensitive. I'm just someone who knows what the Z990 is capable of and not those faulty photos you throw up as representative of the camera. I had the Z990, had a SX50, had P510, have Oly SP820, and a Kodak AZ521 (in zoom category) and all are capable of some very good images and if poorly shot, some crap images like the one you posted can happen. This is your personal rant against the camera and so be it. On the other hand if you cannot see that it also can deliver solid images, then the problem is on your end.
"going so far as to cast aspersions on my motives". Lol...sounds a little conspiratorial or paranoid.
Regarding the link: sorry, try this one: http://hdcameracrews.com/point-and-shoot-digital-cameras/kodak-easyshare-max-z990-12-0-mp-digital/
More Z990 images:https://www.flickr.com/groups/kodkz990/
From photography blog: "The picture quality is excellent, we were extremely impressed with the tonal rendition and accuracy of colours. The new sensor seems to be doing its job by reducing noise very well at the low to mid-range ISO settings. It's great to see that Kodak are getting into the back illuminated sensor market simply because it means a better quality image for the consumer".
note: above link won't hotlink..use copy/paste
Last edited:
photoreddi
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 7,973
- Solutions
- 34
- Reaction score
- 2,821
The images were crap but that's not what rankled. It's due to your saying "nyone can find a sour image from any camera to try and prove it's bad." That goes to my motive for posting the photos which implies that I selected the worst photos to try to make the Z990 look as bad as possible.
Wrong. What I did do is what I always to when comparing cameras. I shoot multiple photos from each camera, often (but not this time) tested every available aperture with at least 3 photos taken at each aperture. Sometimes doing it for 2 or 3 different focal lengths. The I go through the cameras one at a time, picking for instance, the best of 3 shot at f/7.1 and marking it. Then doing the same for the 3 f/8 photos. When this is finished, I compare all of the 'bests' from that camera and again select the best. Now I have the best photo shot probably close to that camera's optimal aperture for the given focal length. Then I repeat the process for each additional camera. When that's completed I have one 'best of the best' for each camera and then use those to compare the cameras.
I didn't go nearly this far with the Z990 and the HS50, but I did take multiple photos from each and only displayed the best that they were able to produce. The HS50 was pretty consistent, it was hard to tell one photo from another. The Z990 though produced a couple of photos that were significantly worse, and you didn't get to see them. On top of this (if you read one of my earlier replies) when I saw the exceptionally small aperture in the posted Kodak photo, I immediately re-shot the photos because such a small aperture shows a very little diffraction blurring even with large APS-C DSLR photos, but the same aperture with the Z990's tiny sensor would produce severe blurring, and I thought that this might have been why the Z990's photo looked so bad. I was wrong. The bogus aperture was only a figment of the Z990's firmware's imagination. But I didn't post anything from the new photos because none of them were any better than the previous 'best'.
After all this, seeing you write that I was attempting to "find a sour image from any camera to try and prove it's bad" showed me more about YOU than I care to know.
..
I'm not surprised that you'd say something like that. It's probably time to add a few people to my ignore list and maybe add a forum or two to it as welll.
.
That still didn't work. It resolved to this link "http://mntracing.com/showthread.php?sid=119335" and below that in the web page area only had this text in the upper left corner "No input file specified."
.
Great. I bought my first Z990 when Kodak was still alive, mostly because I had fond memories of my first ever camera, an old Kodak Brownie Hawkeye and I wanted something to remember the company by. By the time I bought the second Z990 Kodak may have been out of business.
Were my Z990's representative of most Z990s? I have no way to tell, they may be lemons, scraps from the bottom of Kodak's last barrel that don't perform as well as other Z990s. But I can only go by what I know about the Z990s that I do have, and I put a lot more stock in that than in the opinions of people or websites that haven't yet earned my respect.
J
JamesD2
Guest
And it's hard to see YOU as anything other than a know-it-all whose opinions mean squat in the "real world." Any chance you might consider just going away? Just asking.
Have fun yourself, Mr. Know-it-All.
--
JamesD
Happy Snappin'
Last edited:
oldshutterbug
Veteran Member
To be honest James I think this thread has run its course and time for cutting the cr-p.
I Have found that if you agree with what others try and tell you we will all be happy :-D :-D :-D in certain situations it is best not to have an opinion ;-) ;-) ;-)
You know we have had situations like this before and to me silence is golden
I like you will not be getting dragged into garbage like this, what started off as an amateur review of a Kodak camera finished up being a total joke.Im off to the train shed as this thread is doing my head in ;-)
--
Regards
Dave
Downunder.
Be who you are, say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
Last edited:
J
JamesD2
Guest
Very true, Dave. Have fun in the sheds. I'm about to make some tea and watch Private Practice with Lin. Talk with you tomorrow.To be honest James I think this thread has run its course and time for cutting the cr-p.
I Have found that if you agree with what others try and tell you we will all be happy :-D :-D :-D in certain situations it is best not to have an opinion ;-) ;-) ;-)
You know we have had situations like this before and to me silence is golden
Im off to the train shed as this thread is doing my head in ;-)
photoreddi
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 7,973
- Solutions
- 34
- Reaction score
- 2,821
Your wish is granted. It's sad that this forum appears to be a perfect example of inmates running the asylum.
.
Typical. From what you recently posted, I'm sure you'll have a lot more fun in your future reading more of oldshutterbug's rants. Two peas in a pod.
oldshutterbug
Veteran Member
Your wish is granted. It's sad that this forum appears to be a perfect example of inmates running the asylum.
.
Typical. From what you recently posted, I'm sure you'll have a lot more fun in your future reading more of oldshutterbug's rants. Two peas in a pod.
[/QUOTE]
Hey you talkin bout me, lighten up and be happy :-D :-D I have been called all sorts of things but never thought of myself as being a pea
not to keen on the asylum bit as I was hoping that I still had my marbles, maybe I wuz wrong :-( maybe you could make another entry into this forum by posting some of your proper photos, I am sure the other lads would like to see what you do other than over enlarge sections of an image.--
Regards
Dave
Downunder.
Be who you are, say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
Last edited:
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum