Kodak z980

Discussion in 'Kodak' started by ray, Mar 13, 2009.

  1. ray

    ray Guest

    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.
     
    ray, Mar 13, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. ray

    Mark Thomas Guest

    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..

    The specs are good, and it's nice to see it does RAW.
     
    Mark Thomas, Mar 14, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. ray

    Motzarella Guest

    "Mark Thomas" <> wrote in message
    news:gpet8i$eq0$...
    > 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..
    >
    > The specs are good, and it's nice to see it does RAW.


    Are they still made by Sanyo?
     
    Motzarella, Mar 14, 2009
    #3
  4. ray

    ray Guest

    On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 07:04:07 -0700, Welch Glam Slum wrote:

    > On Mar 13, 5:24 pm, ray <> wrote:
    >> 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.

    >
    > 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.


    That's cool - glad to know about another one.
     
    ray, Mar 14, 2009
    #4
  5. ray

    ray Guest

    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'.


    >
    > The specs are good, and it's nice to see it does RAW.
     
    ray, Mar 14, 2009
    #5
  6. ray

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:51:01 -0700, "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?

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

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Mar 14, 2009
    #6
  7. ray

    Robert Coe Guest

    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), ...

    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)".
     
    Robert Coe, Mar 14, 2009
    #7
  8. ray

    Mark Thomas Guest

    Robert Coe wrote:
    > 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), ...
    >
    > 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.
     
    Mark Thomas, Mar 15, 2009
    #8
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Similar Threads
  1. Lenny
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    1,011
    Lenny
    Feb 11, 2004
  2. Graham Fountain
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,051
    mjmm@.bit.net.au
    Oct 5, 2004
  3. Ray Fischer
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    798
    Bill Funk
    Jun 14, 2007
  4. eng
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    686
  5. JR Berry
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    934
  6. golf
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    531
    Ron Baird
    Jun 9, 2004
  7. Ron Baird
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    781
  8. enri
    Replies:
    62
    Views:
    1,420
Loading...