OSNews

What use is 720p video if its that noisy (witness the ground, especially)? Was that filmed from a tripod?

Why are you mostly filming 95% still pictures with some leaf moving slightly? Would be much more interesting to see how it handles moving objects, e.g. by shooting people passing by on a busy street.

Since these reviews at OSNews I know just one thing for sure, the difference between a nerd and a geek. A geek just buys everything out there and doesn't know much about it, a nerd doesn't buy everything because he does know that most of the goodies a real crap :-) And this el cheapo cam, well nice review, but what's the point? Why not test some real geekware like the Casio Exilim (V7/V8) with 800p resolution, h264 recording, better quality with less MP for just a couple of bucks more?

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2007_reviews/casio_ex-v8.html

It's just an example for some really special stuff, but this cam above is more or less nothing special at all.

Thank you, Eugenia, for your review. I am saddened by those who feel they must attack any article or author who doesn't conform to their world view.

When playing the 720p version it seems to be playing back at a low FPS (15 or so) while the standard def is much higher. Is that the playback software limit?

You color corrected the sample video? Since it's a review and all, I would kind of like to see the video uncorrected to gauge the device's color ability. I could tell it was corrected the moment I hit play (unfortunately the world is not that vibrant).

Was the weird plant photo also corrected? If not, there is a /lot/ of bleeding coming from this camera in bright scenes.

To some around here: before you post another comment of "why is this osnews" and "where my comment went", please read article 8 of our Forum Terms and Conditions. Any other such comment will be removed by either myself *or* Thom, no questions asked. If you want to comment, comment ONLY about the product. Discussion about the topics only via email please.

Edited 2007-12-15 22:43

The video's pretty good, although it has a tendency to blow out the highlights a bit-- some negative exposure compensation might help. Also in several scenes there appears to be a hot spot (pinkish circle) in the middle of the images, usually when strong sunlight is involved.

Unfortunately, however, the still images are terrible. The palm trees in the background are just a green smear on the horizon, with almost no visible detail.

Looking at the specs on the camera, it's easy to see why-- 12.1 million pixel sites on a (roughly) 7.6mm x 5.7mm sensor.

Sure, it keep glass costs down to use such a tiny sensor, but digital imaging has been getting *worse* for the last 5 years, not better. Smaller sensors mean less light gathering, more interference, more noise, and of course, cranking up the ISO (amplifying a weak signal) introduces *more* noise, resulting in increasingly paranoid noise-reduction.

A 5 or 6 megapixel camera will produce smaller images, but they'll have just as much detail-- and more importantly, they'll look just as good (if not better) when printed at 8x10 or 5x7.

I notice on the site that it says "Prints up to 40x30 inches!"-- proving that somewhere, someone at Kodak has lost their minds. While I'm sure you can print at that resolution, it's going to look like something by Monet, only less inspiring.

For something you're going to hang on a wall, having it professionally printed/framed at 200 dpi will still look great, and with a 6-8mp camera, producing a 17x11 print is no problem. With a package like Genuine Fractals, you can get some *REALLY* large prints. Panorama stitching can also produce really large images if desired.

Finally, "HD" (720p) in this case means "1280x720". That's smaller than my desktop resolution, less than 1 megapixel, and produces really nice video. 1080p, being 1920x1080, of course looks better, and comes in at just over 2 megapixels.

So why does this camera need to be 12mp? 6mp, and it would take superb photos, and videos.

I just ordered this camera.

BTW Kodak Australia get your act together for your brick and mortar suppliers pretty please.

I have several worries about this camera (and most digital compacts):

1. Actual speed of use. Most (even modern) digital compacts are still slow to use, taking a second or so between shots. Kodak says 1.7fps for up to 3 frames, does it actually live up to this?

2. Slow/inaccurate autofocus

3. High noise at higher ISOs

4. Fastest shutter speed is 1/1200 second, and the slowest, 8 seconds, that's rather limiting in my eyes.

5. Kodak's compression ratios have been dodgy for quite some time.

6. No RAW file ability - a necessity for any serious photography, in fact, any semi serious photography.

Kudos to Kodak for making a smallish camera, that's sexy, and has a nice large LCD screen, and also has a variety of manual adjustments.

I suspect that the macro modes aren't true macro - which is 1:1 or greater. This is a specialty area of mine (see my website and my flickr pro account), so I would like to think that I know what I'm talking about ;-)

My final comments are that Kodak says it's a "1 / 1.72 in. CCD". Well, 1.72" is 4.3 or so centimeters. I doubt very much that the sensor is that large, especially since Canon's full frame sensor DSLRs cost a LOT more (due to fabrication issues), and that Canon up until the release of the Nikon D3 has been the only full frame competitor (other than a single Kodak DSLR 5 years or so ago).

The smaller sensor sizes of digital compacts causes several issues:

1. loss of resolution
2. High increase in noise at all ISO settings, but especially so at higher ISO ratings.

The usage of a CCD sensor instead of CMOS also causes several technical issues (higher power consumption, hower noise per pixel than equivalent CMOS technology).

The only real advantage that smaller sensor sizes have over the larger ones in DSLRs is the increased DOF due to the circle of confusion having less affect on the final image.

For the money, and for the average "snapper" it does seem good value.

Dave

PS Kodak's software totally blows - at least with my dad's version of software that he has...it screws up jpeg association, screws up EXIF information etc etc. Maybe newer versions of the Kodak software are better.

"The only technical issue I had was that while XP would recognize the camera, it wouldn't mount it as an external drive, I had to use the EasyShare software or a flash reader to get my media out of the camera."

You're right. That's easy. No thanks.