Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Kodak z980

0 views
Skip to first unread message

ray

unread,
Mar 13, 2009, 12:24:36 PM3/13/09
to
Got an e-mail today from Kodak pointing me to the new Z980. Upon closer
investigation, I find it has a 24x (26-624 35mm equiv) zoom, has a second
shutter releas button for easier side hold photos, captures RAW as well
as jpeg. Captures video at 1280x720 at 30 fps. It's a 12mp camera. Would
be interesting to see one.

pupick

unread,
Mar 13, 2009, 6:51:01 PM3/13/09
to
The specs and price on this camera are intriguing.
Unfortunately Kodak cameras have earned every bit of their reputations for
dubious quality.
However at what will likely be a $300 street price what have you got to
lose?

Mark Thomas

unread,
Mar 13, 2009, 8:20:33 PM3/13/09
to
I'm afraid that to date all I like about the Kodak superzooms is that
they *are* quite good for granma and granpa (for whom large prints are
irrelevant), and they do keep a little bit of downward price pressure on
the other makers..

The specs are good, and it's nice to see it does RAW.

Motzarella

unread,
Mar 14, 2009, 9:51:50 AM3/14/09
to

"Mark Thomas" <mark.t...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gpet8i$eq0$1...@reader.motzarella.org...

Are they still made by Sanyo?

Welch Glam Slum

unread,
Mar 14, 2009, 10:04:07 AM3/14/09
to

CES 2009: Olympus has announced the SP-590UZ ultra-zoom digital
camera. Trumping Kodak's 24X zoom, the SP-590UZ features a 26X zoom
lens that covers a 26-676mm equivalent focal length range. Thankfully
there's image stabilization to help prevent camera shake at the long
end of the zoom. Like previous recent Olympus UZ cameras, the SP-590UZ
can record RAW files.

ray

unread,
Mar 14, 2009, 12:02:19 PM3/14/09
to

That's cool - glad to know about another one.

ray

unread,
Mar 14, 2009, 12:04:14 PM3/14/09
to
On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 10:20:33 +1000, Mark Thomas wrote:

> pupick wrote:
>> The specs and price on this camera are intriguing. Unfortunately Kodak
>> cameras have earned every bit of their reputations for dubious quality.
>> However at what will likely be a $300 street price what have you got to
>> lose?
> I'm afraid that to date all I like about the Kodak superzooms is that
> they *are* quite good for granma and granpa (for whom large prints are
> irrelevant), and they do keep a little bit of downward price pressure on
> the other makers..

Since this IS a 'rec' newsgroup, I was not addressing the needs of
'professionals'.

Robert Coe

unread,
Mar 14, 2009, 12:20:04 PM3/14/09
to
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:51:01 -0700, "pupick" <fac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: The specs and price on this camera are intriguing.

That question more or less answers itself, doesn't it?

Bob

Robert Coe

unread,
Mar 14, 2009, 12:31:59 PM3/14/09
to
On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 10:20:33 +1000, Mark Thomas <mark.t...@gmail.com>
wrote:

: pupick wrote:
: > The specs and price on this camera are intriguing.
: > Unfortunately Kodak cameras have earned every bit of their reputations
: > for dubious quality.
: > However at what will likely be a $300 street price what have you got to
: > lose?
: I'm afraid that to date all I like about the Kodak superzooms is that
: they *are* quite good for granma and granpa (for whom large prints are
: irrelevant), ...

Look here, Marco, let's not get personal. As the oldest (probably) participant
in this newsgroup, with five (5) grandchildren, I'm right in your gunsight. I
can assure you that large prints are not irrelevant to this "granpa". ;^)

Bob

P.S.: In the film days, I was a Nikon user; in digital, Canon. My only Kodak
was a "Brownie Reflex (Synchro Model)".

Mark Thomas

unread,
Mar 15, 2009, 4:54:04 AM3/15/09
to
Robert Coe wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 10:20:33 +1000, Mark Thomas <mark.t...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> : pupick wrote:
> : > The specs and price on this camera are intriguing.
> : > Unfortunately Kodak cameras have earned every bit of their reputations
> : > for dubious quality.
> : > However at what will likely be a $300 street price what have you got to
> : > lose?
> : I'm afraid that to date all I like about the Kodak superzooms is that
> : they *are* quite good for granma and granpa (for whom large prints are
> : irrelevant), ...
>
> Look here, Marco, let's not get personal. As the oldest (probably) participant
> in this newsgroup, with five (5) grandchildren, I'm right in your gunsight. I
> can assure you that large prints are not irrelevant to this "granpa". ;^)

I'm a granpa too, I'll have you know, but only one gc.

I was referring to the .. er.. more typical type, you know, as in
'politically incorrect'.

> P.S.: In the film days, I was a Nikon user; in digital, Canon. My only Kodak
> was a "Brownie Reflex (Synchro Model)".

I once had a film Nikon but it was a secondhand lemon, sadly. Scarred
me a bit. Started with a Box Brownie too, then entered the SLR world
with a Zenit (!!), then Fujica, then Pentax/Ricoh, that Nikon very
briefly and finally Minolta. For some reason Canon never interested me.

Haven't got back into SLR's in digital yet, but am very close. Have
dabbled with Sony DSCF717, F828 (much maligned but great camera),
Olympus C8080, Fuji S9000 and a few others (yes, I'm a sad case)..

So I've had my share of superzoom-ish cameras. I don't hate the kodaks,
but it annoys me that they have quite good lenses, but have to date let
themselves down with the sensor and processing and electronics.

0 new messages