Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Panasonic Lumix vs Kodak vs Anything Else, $500 range, at ..

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 1:59:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I'm thinking about switching from film to digital. I have a Pentax *ist 35mm
right now, with a Sigma 35-300mm lens, which I think is just great, but I
may want the flexibility of digital.

I'm looking at the Lumix FZ20 or the Kodak EasyShare DX7500. Any thoughts on
one vs. the other? The one thing about the Kodak is that if I register by
Jan 31, they'll send me a 1 GB SD card.

I also saw the Nikon CoolPix, but I think the optical zoom is only 8X.

Does anybody know if any of these cameras have a "databack" (i.e., can they
print the date on photos)? I've looked at the specs, but I swear I can't see
anything.

Thx.

-Rich
January 2, 2005 1:59:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

We just bought an FZ15, and the performance at 12x zoom is stunning.
Ergonomics, lens performance and even macro are great.
The handbook describes how to do the date on the photo, though we have
not tried that function,
DonB
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 1:59:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Konica-Minolta Dimage Z3 - my choice - a bit pricey here in Bulgaria -
I got it for $600 with a 512MB card, but a person with a credit card
can find it in the $350-400 range. 12x optical, 4x digital, Antishake
balance for those teleshots. I am really impressed with this camera.
Also has the data imprint option, which you mentioned.
Related resources
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 1:59:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Rich Belthoff" <rbelthoff@no.spam.carolina.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3XFBd.12198$z92.242806@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> I'm thinking about switching from film to digital. I have a Pentax *ist
> 35mm right now, with a Sigma 35-300mm lens, which I think is just great,
> but I may want the flexibility of digital.
>

You should try to stretch it and get a Pentax *ist DSLR body. Digicams like
the ones you mentioned don't come close to DSLR performance, especially
in terms of speed, noise and color accuracy.
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 2:34:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Why not just buy a *ist DS body to use with the Pentax lens, they cost a bit
more but it will blow you away with how good they are.

"Rich Belthoff" <rbelthoff@no.spam.carolina.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3XFBd.12198$z92.242806@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> I'm thinking about switching from film to digital. I have a Pentax *ist
> 35mm right now, with a Sigma 35-300mm lens, which I think is just great,
> but I may want the flexibility of digital.
>
> I'm looking at the Lumix FZ20 or the Kodak EasyShare DX7500. Any thoughts
> on one vs. the other? The one thing about the Kodak is that if I register
> by Jan 31, they'll send me a 1 GB SD card.
>
> I also saw the Nikon CoolPix, but I think the optical zoom is only 8X.
>
> Does anybody know if any of these cameras have a "databack" (i.e., can
> they print the date on photos)? I've looked at the specs, but I swear I
> can't see anything.
>
> Thx.
>
> -Rich
>
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 2:50:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Don't overlook the FZ3 which is much cheaper ($390), lighter, and smaller
than the other FZs. I really like this camera.

Bob M

"Rich Belthoff" <rbelthoff@no.spam.carolina.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3XFBd.12198$z92.242806@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> I'm thinking about switching from film to digital. I have a Pentax *ist
35mm
> right now, with a Sigma 35-300mm lens, which I think is just great, but I
> may want the flexibility of digital.
>
> I'm looking at the Lumix FZ20 or the Kodak EasyShare DX7500. Any thoughts
on
> one vs. the other? The one thing about the Kodak is that if I register by
> Jan 31, they'll send me a 1 GB SD card.
>
> I also saw the Nikon CoolPix, but I think the optical zoom is only 8X.
>
> Does anybody know if any of these cameras have a "databack" (i.e., can
they
> print the date on photos)? I've looked at the specs, but I swear I can't
see
> anything.
>
> Thx.
>
> -Rich
>
>
January 2, 2005 4:33:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Rich Belthoff" <rbelthoff@no.spam.carolina.rr.com> wrote in message news:3XFBd.12198$z92.242806@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> I'm thinking about switching from film to digital. I have a Pentax *ist 35mm
> right now, with a Sigma 35-300mm lens, which I think is just great, but I
> may want the flexibility of digital.
>
> I'm looking at the Lumix FZ20 or the Kodak EasyShare DX7500. Any thoughts on
> one vs. the other? The one thing about the Kodak is that if I register by
> Jan 31, they'll send me a 1 GB SD card.
>
> I also saw the Nikon CoolPix, but I think the optical zoom is only 8X.

I got the FZ20 3 wks. ago and am very happy with it. The deciding factor for me
was the image stabilization, something the Kodak models lack. At long zoom
ranges it makes an enoumous difference in usability.

> Does anybody know if any of these cameras have a "databack" (i.e., can they
> print the date on photos)? I've looked at the specs, but I swear I can't see
> anything.

The FZ20 has a date print option that is activated if printing directly from the
camera to a pictbridge enabled printer. It will not stamp a date on the image file
itself like the Sony's and other brands do. The date, time, F-stop and other
data are automatically stored in the image files as exif information.
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 7:09:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Rich Belthoff wrote:
> I'm thinking about switching from film to digital. I have a Pentax *ist 35mm
> right now, with a Sigma 35-300mm lens, which I think is just great, but I
> may want the flexibility of digital.
>
> I'm looking at the Lumix FZ20 or the Kodak EasyShare DX7500. Any thoughts on
> one vs. the other? The one thing about the Kodak is that if I register by
> Jan 31, they'll send me a 1 GB SD card.
>
> I also saw the Nikon CoolPix, but I think the optical zoom is only 8X.
>
> Does anybody know if any of these cameras have a "databack" (i.e., can they
> print the date on photos)? I've looked at the specs, but I swear I can't see
> anything.
>
> Thx.
>
> -Rich
>
>
Sigh.
I will NEVER understand why anyone would want to deface his pictures
with a date actually covering the subject matter. However, I am pretty
sure the Kodak DX7590 will let you do this. May I suggest that if you
want to know when a picture was taken, you look at the EXIF data
recorded by just about every current digital camera, and print that on
the BACK of the photo.
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 9:17:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Dutch Flyer" <dutchwings@bbnet.com> wrote in message
news:5cIBd.9313$6i.7589@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Rich Belthoff" <rbelthoff@no.spam.carolina.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:3XFBd.12198$z92.242806@twister.southeast.rr.com...
>> I'm thinking about switching from film to digital. I have a Pentax *ist
>> 35mm right now, with a Sigma 35-300mm lens, which I think is just great,
>> but I may want the flexibility of digital.
>>
>
> You should try to stretch it and get a Pentax *ist DSLR body. Digicams
> like
> the ones you mentioned don't come close to DSLR performance, especially
> in terms of speed, noise and color accuracy.
>

Already said that but they never believe you.
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 1:36:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Rich Belthoff wrote:
> I'm thinking about switching from film to digital. I have a Pentax
> *ist 35mm right now, with a Sigma 35-300mm lens, which I think is
> just great, but I may want the flexibility of digital.

The Pentax DSLR, apart from being expensive, will make your lens work like
a 53 - 460mm zoom.

> I'm looking at the Lumix FZ20 or the Kodak EasyShare DX7500. Any
> thoughts on one vs. the other? The one thing about the Kodak is that
> if I register by Jan 31, they'll send me a 1 GB SD card.

The image stabilisation in the FZ20 is well worth having.

> I also saw the Nikon CoolPix, but I think the optical zoom is only 8X.

Nikon have the Coolpix 8800 ZLR which is 10:1 zoom (35 - 350mm) and
includes image stabilisation.

> Does anybody know if any of these cameras have a "databack" (i.e.,
> can they print the date on photos)? I've looked at the specs, but I
> swear I can't see anything.

I can't promise, but the Nikon 8400 has this function, and therefore most
likely the 8800 does as well. You could download the manual to check if
you like. However, with digital the date and time is given in information
at the start of the image file, so you may not need this function.

We went for the Panasonic FZ20 as the best compromise - it has the image
stabilisation (great for long zooms) and a Leica f/2.8 lens.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 2:26:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Rich Belthoff" <rbelthoff@no.spam.carolina.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3XFBd.12198$z92.242806@twister.southeast.rr.com...

> I'm looking at the Lumix FZ20 or the Kodak EasyShare DX7500. Any thoughts
> on one vs. the other? The one thing about the Kodak is that if I register
> by

I just bougt a new digicam, and was choosing between Canon A95 and Lumix
FZ20. I am sure that FZ20 is one of the best non-SLR today (espicially
because of the lens), but I bought the Canon A95 because of the lower price,
better battery life (normal AA batteries) CompactFlash which I have a couple
of already.

But I would say go for for Lumix.

Regards, Lars.
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 5:39:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I thought about that, but there is quite a bit of difference in the price.
The *ist DS also doesn't have video capability. I may not shoot a lot of
video, but my brother has a P&S digital camera and he sends us video now and
then over email.

Thx.

-Rich


"Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:3sGBd.99064$K7.81567@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Why not just buy a *ist DS body to use with the Pentax lens, they cost a
> bit more but it will blow you away with how good they are.
>
> "Rich Belthoff" <rbelthoff@no.spam.carolina.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:3XFBd.12198$z92.242806@twister.southeast.rr.com...
>> I'm thinking about switching from film to digital. I have a Pentax *ist
>> 35mm right now, with a Sigma 35-300mm lens, which I think is just great,
>> but I may want the flexibility of digital.
>>
>> I'm looking at the Lumix FZ20 or the Kodak EasyShare DX7500. Any thoughts
>> on one vs. the other? The one thing about the Kodak is that if I register
>> by Jan 31, they'll send me a 1 GB SD card.
>>
>> I also saw the Nikon CoolPix, but I think the optical zoom is only 8X.
>>
>> Does anybody know if any of these cameras have a "databack" (i.e., can
>> they print the date on photos)? I've looked at the specs, but I swear I
>> can't see anything.
>>
>> Thx.
>>
>> -Rich
>>
>
>
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 5:41:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

If you have a pictbridge enable printer, does the date stamp print on the
photos like they do when I take film shots?

So, I guess if the info is stored in the image, there's probably some way to
add a data stamp to photos that I might want to have it on, but I'd have to
do it manually before printing. Oh well.

Thx.

-Rich

"Ken" <ken@ken.ken> wrote in message
news:%bIBd.6001$yV1.5339@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Rich Belthoff" <rbelthoff@no.spam.carolina.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:3XFBd.12198$z92.242806@twister.southeast.rr.com...
>> I'm thinking about switching from film to digital. I have a Pentax *ist
>> 35mm
>> right now, with a Sigma 35-300mm lens, which I think is just great, but I
>> may want the flexibility of digital.
>>
>> I'm looking at the Lumix FZ20 or the Kodak EasyShare DX7500. Any thoughts
>> on
>> one vs. the other? The one thing about the Kodak is that if I register by
>> Jan 31, they'll send me a 1 GB SD card.
>>
>> I also saw the Nikon CoolPix, but I think the optical zoom is only 8X.
>
> I got the FZ20 3 wks. ago and am very happy with it. The deciding factor
> for me
> was the image stabilization, something the Kodak models lack. At long zoom
> ranges it makes an enoumous difference in usability.
>
>> Does anybody know if any of these cameras have a "databack" (i.e., can
>> they
>> print the date on photos)? I've looked at the specs, but I swear I can't
>> see
>> anything.
>
> The FZ20 has a date print option that is activated if printing directly
> from the
> camera to a pictbridge enabled printer. It will not stamp a date on the
> image file
> itself like the Sony's and other brands do. The date, time, F-stop and
> other
> data are automatically stored in the image files as exif information.
>
>
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 5:43:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I think I've seen the *istDS for something like $800 and the Lumix FZ20 for
under $500. I'm still thinking about it. I suppose if I could sell my *ist
body on eBay for a reasonable price and keep the 28 to 300 lens, I might be
able to make up the difference (and I do really prefer 28mm to 36 or more on
these other ones).

Thx.

-Rich

"Dutch Flyer" <dutchwings@bbnet.com> wrote in message
news:5cIBd.9313$6i.7589@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Rich Belthoff" <rbelthoff@no.spam.carolina.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:3XFBd.12198$z92.242806@twister.southeast.rr.com...
>> I'm thinking about switching from film to digital. I have a Pentax *ist
>> 35mm right now, with a Sigma 35-300mm lens, which I think is just great,
>> but I may want the flexibility of digital.
>>
>
> You should try to stretch it and get a Pentax *ist DSLR body. Digicams
> like
> the ones you mentioned don't come close to DSLR performance, especially
> in terms of speed, noise and color accuracy.
>
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 5:44:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Is there some place that would show example prints of each??

I've seen some samples from the Lumix, and they look pretty good, but I
haven't seen anything printed out on paper. I may have to go to some camera
shop and see what they've got.

Thx.

-Rich



"Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:TlMBd.99550$K7.27903@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Dutch Flyer" <dutchwings@bbnet.com> wrote in message
> news:5cIBd.9313$6i.7589@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "Rich Belthoff" <rbelthoff@no.spam.carolina.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:3XFBd.12198$z92.242806@twister.southeast.rr.com...
>>> I'm thinking about switching from film to digital. I have a Pentax *ist
>>> 35mm right now, with a Sigma 35-300mm lens, which I think is just great,
>>> but I may want the flexibility of digital.
>>>
>>
>> You should try to stretch it and get a Pentax *ist DSLR body. Digicams
>> like
>> the ones you mentioned don't come close to DSLR performance, especially
>> in terms of speed, noise and color accuracy.
>>
>
> Already said that but they never believe you.
>
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 5:46:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Print on the back sounds like a plan. I hadn't thought of that. I'm not sure
I want to get a photo printer and all that. I might just use some online
service, like Shutterfly. Can these auto services just print EXIF data on
the back??

Thx.

-Rich

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:bLPBd.7112$SW1.4570@fe10.usenetserver.com...
> Rich Belthoff wrote:
>> I'm thinking about switching from film to digital. I have a Pentax *ist
>> 35mm right now, with a Sigma 35-300mm lens, which I think is just great,
>> but I may want the flexibility of digital.
>>
>> I'm looking at the Lumix FZ20 or the Kodak EasyShare DX7500. Any thoughts
>> on one vs. the other? The one thing about the Kodak is that if I register
>> by Jan 31, they'll send me a 1 GB SD card.
>>
>> I also saw the Nikon CoolPix, but I think the optical zoom is only 8X.
>>
>> Does anybody know if any of these cameras have a "databack" (i.e., can
>> they print the date on photos)? I've looked at the specs, but I swear I
>> can't see anything.
>>
>> Thx.
>>
>> -Rich
> Sigh.
> I will NEVER understand why anyone would want to deface his pictures with
> a date actually covering the subject matter. However, I am pretty sure
> the Kodak DX7590 will let you do this. May I suggest that if you want to
> know when a picture was taken, you look at the EXIF data recorded by just
> about every current digital camera, and print that on the BACK of the
> photo.
>
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 5:48:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Are you saying that if I got the *ist DS that my 28-300mm lens is only going
to be 53mm instead of 28? Why is that? If that's the case, then that's a
reason not to go with the *ist DS.

Thx.

-Rich

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:33q15jF439tgjU1@individual.net...
> Rich Belthoff wrote:
>> I'm thinking about switching from film to digital. I have a Pentax
>> *ist 35mm right now, with a Sigma 35-300mm lens, which I think is
>> just great, but I may want the flexibility of digital.
>
> The Pentax DSLR, apart from being expensive, will make your lens work like
> a 53 - 460mm zoom.
>
>> I'm looking at the Lumix FZ20 or the Kodak EasyShare DX7500. Any
>> thoughts on one vs. the other? The one thing about the Kodak is that
>> if I register by Jan 31, they'll send me a 1 GB SD card.
>
> The image stabilisation in the FZ20 is well worth having.
>
>> I also saw the Nikon CoolPix, but I think the optical zoom is only 8X.
>
> Nikon have the Coolpix 8800 ZLR which is 10:1 zoom (35 - 350mm) and
> includes image stabilisation.
>
>> Does anybody know if any of these cameras have a "databack" (i.e.,
>> can they print the date on photos)? I've looked at the specs, but I
>> swear I can't see anything.
>
> I can't promise, but the Nikon 8400 has this function, and therefore most
> likely the 8800 does as well. You could download the manual to check if
> you like. However, with digital the date and time is given in information
> at the start of the image file, so you may not need this function.
>
> We went for the Panasonic FZ20 as the best compromise - it has the image
> stabilisation (great for long zooms) and a Leica f/2.8 lens.
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 6:53:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Rich Belthoff wrote:
> Are you saying that if I got the *ist DS that my 28-300mm lens is
> only going to be 53mm instead of 28? Why is that? If that's the case,
> then that's a reason not to go with the *ist DS.

Yes. Because the sensor on the DSLR is smaller than a 35mm full frame,
you only see the field of view equivalent to a lens about 1.5 times the
focal length. The middle part of the picture is cropped. In that
respect, the 35 - 300mm zoom you quoted would behave like a 53 - 460mm
zoom when mounted on a DSLR. A 28mm lens would have the same field of
view as a 42mm lens.

Cheers,
David
January 3, 2005 5:06:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Rich Belthoff" <rbelthoff@no.spam.carolina.rr.com> wrote in message news:o KTBd.3415$lN5.388335@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> If you have a pictbridge enable printer, does the date stamp print on the
> photos like they do when I take film shots?

I just tried a printing from the camera to a pictbridge photoprinter (canon iP6000) straight
out of the FZ20. I forst had to enable the date print option in the camera's print menu. The
date was printed (in red) on the lower right corner of the print, as expected. Hadn't tried it
until you asked but it is nice to know that it available.

> So, I guess if the info is stored in the image, there's probably some way to
> add a data stamp to photos that I might want to have it on, but I'd have to
> do it manually before printing. Oh well.

The printing software that comes with the Canon iP6000D has an option to add a date
at print time. I assume it is accessing the EXIF data and a test image shows the same
date stamp as the pictbridge printed photo. I don't know if every printer manufacturer
provides similar date printing options with their software but at least Canon does.
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 5:06:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ken wrote:
> "Rich Belthoff" <rbelthoff@no.spam.carolina.rr.com> wrote in message news:o KTBd.3415$lN5.388335@twister.southeast.rr.com...
>
>>If you have a pictbridge enable printer, does the date stamp print on the
>>photos like they do when I take film shots?
>
>
> I just tried a printing from the camera to a pictbridge photoprinter (canon iP6000) straight
> out of the FZ20. I forst had to enable the date print option in the camera's print menu. The
> date was printed (in red) on the lower right corner of the print, as expected. Hadn't tried it
> until you asked but it is nice to know that it available.
>
>
>>So, I guess if the info is stored in the image, there's probably some way to
>>add a data stamp to photos that I might want to have it on, but I'd have to
>>do it manually before printing. Oh well.
>
>
> The printing software that comes with the Canon iP6000D has an option to add a date
> at print time. I assume it is accessing the EXIF data and a test image shows the same
> date stamp as the pictbridge printed photo. I don't know if every printer manufacturer
> provides similar date printing options with their software but at least Canon does.
>
>
I can't imagine wanting a date printed ON my pictures. So much for art.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
January 3, 2005 6:09:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message news:aJ2Cd.12107$9F.1770@fe07.lga...

> I can't imagine wanting a date printed ON my pictures. So much for art.

Having the original digital picture available with that data does make it a
bit redundant. I have no use for it but it does still appear to be popular
with some people. Go figure!
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 6:09:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ken wrote:
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message news:aJ2Cd.12107$9F.1770@fe07.lga...
>
>
>>I can't imagine wanting a date printed ON my pictures. So much for art.
>
>
> Having the original digital picture available with that data does make it a
> bit redundant. I have no use for it but it does still appear to be popular
> with some people. Go figure!
>
>

I have gotten pictures with the date in yellow, or red on the body of
the picture. Often it is possible to get rid of it with Photoshop
Elements, but it is very distracting to me. Rather like a flashing
light in my face.
Doesn't seem to bother many people, though. There is no accounting for
taste...


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 7:09:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in
news:bLPBd.7112$SW1.4570@fe10.usenetserver.com:

>> Does anybody know if any of these cameras have a "databack" (i.e.,
>> can they print the date on photos)? I've looked at the specs, but I
>> swear I can't see anything.

> Sigh.
> I will NEVER understand why anyone would want to deface his pictures
> with a date actually covering the subject matter. However, I am
> pretty sure the Kodak DX7590 will let you do this. May I suggest that
> if you want to know when a picture was taken, you look at the EXIF
> data recorded by just about every current digital camera, and print
> that on the BACK of the photo.

The DX6490 does and, from some reviews I've read, the DX7590 also does.

I don't use date stamp for personal pictures, and can't understand it
either, but we do at work where we e-mail pictures documenting
deficiencies back and forth. The date is as important as the subject.
It's also written into some construction contracts that you will provide
daily time stamped progress pictures. It's just a useful option when you
need it.
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 12:20:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Greetings Rich,

The DX7590 is a great camera and you will be very well pleased with it. The
external flash option is one of my favorite features along with the 10 X
optical zoom and the electronic viewfinder. I am sorry to say, however,
that the offer for a 1 gig card was over on Dec 31st. You had to buy the
camera before the end of the year. The reference to Jan 31st is the
postmark date.

Please review the following link for details. Did not want you to base your
decision just on that feature. Rather, the camera itself is worth having.
FYI

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/digital/products/highlights/...

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company




"Rich Belthoff" <rbelthoff@no.spam.carolina.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3XFBd.12198$z92.242806@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> I'm thinking about switching from film to digital. I have a Pentax *ist
35mm
> right now, with a Sigma 35-300mm lens, which I think is just great, but I
> may want the flexibility of digital.
>
> I'm looking at the Lumix FZ20 or the Kodak EasyShare DX7500. Any thoughts
on
> one vs. the other? The one thing about the Kodak is that if I register by
> Jan 31, they'll send me a 1 GB SD card.
>
> I also saw the Nikon CoolPix, but I think the optical zoom is only 8X.
>
> Does anybody know if any of these cameras have a "databack" (i.e., can
they
> print the date on photos)? I've looked at the specs, but I swear I can't
see
> anything.
>
> Thx.
>
> -Rich
>
>
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 3:39:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Rich Belthoff wrote:
> I thought I read somewhere that the DX7590 was supposed to take an
external
> flash, but I could never confirm it on the web page (I probably just
missed
> it). I use the external flash now and then on my Pentax *ist at this
point
> when I need to take interior photos far away (like my daughter
singing on
> stage at a chorus concert).

The Kodak 7590 does not have an external flash shoe. Comparing it to
the Panasonic FZ20, it doesn't have image stabilisation.

I had an Olympus C-750 with 10x optical zoom and IMHO, anything over 5x
optical zoom is useless without either a tripod or image stabilisation.
Its like buying a feature that you can never use.

So I would look at cameras with image stabilisation. Manufacturers who
have IS on their P&S cameras are Canon, Nikon, Minolta and Panasonic.
Off the four, I would pick the Panasonic FZ20 because of its Leica lens
that has a constant aperture of f/2.8 throughout the 12x zoom range.
Such a lens for a SLR/dSLR wouldn't cost anything below $2000-$3000.
HTH,

Siddhartha
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 7:02:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Siddhartha Jain wrote:
> Rich Belthoff wrote:
>
>>I thought I read somewhere that the DX7590 was supposed to take an
>
> external
>
>>flash, but I could never confirm it on the web page (I probably just
>
> missed
>
>>it). I use the external flash now and then on my Pentax *ist at this
>
> point
>
>>when I need to take interior photos far away (like my daughter
>
> singing on
>
>>stage at a chorus concert).
>
>
> The Kodak 7590 does not have an external flash shoe. Comparing it to
> the Panasonic FZ20, it doesn't have image stabilisation.
>
> I had an Olympus C-750 with 10x optical zoom and IMHO, anything over 5x
> optical zoom is useless without either a tripod or image stabilisation.
> Its like buying a feature that you can never use.

You mean you can't attach a tripod, or brace the camera against a tree,
post, or rock? Hardly a deal-breaker.
>
> So I would look at cameras with image stabilisation. Manufacturers who
> have IS on their P&S cameras are Canon, Nikon, Minolta and Panasonic.
> Off the four, I would pick the Panasonic FZ20 because of its Leica lens
> that has a constant aperture of f/2.8 throughout the 12x zoom range.
> Such a lens for a SLR/dSLR wouldn't cost anything below $2000-$3000.
> HTH,
>
> Siddhartha
>
I agree that IS is a nice feature, and is highly desirable, all other
things being equal. BTW, the Kodak 7590 doesn't have a hotshoe, but
does have a jack for external flash sync.
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 7:59:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Thanks for checking on that. It is helpful in making my decision.

-Rich

"Ken" <ken@ken.ken> wrote in message
news:SM1Cd.5690$5R.4940@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Rich Belthoff" <rbelthoff@no.spam.carolina.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:o KTBd.3415$lN5.388335@twister.southeast.rr.com...
>> If you have a pictbridge enable printer, does the date stamp print on the
>> photos like they do when I take film shots?
>
> I just tried a printing from the camera to a pictbridge photoprinter
> (canon iP6000) straight
> out of the FZ20. I forst had to enable the date print option in the
> camera's print menu. The
> date was printed (in red) on the lower right corner of the print, as
> expected. Hadn't tried it
> until you asked but it is nice to know that it available.
>
>> So, I guess if the info is stored in the image, there's probably some way
>> to
>> add a data stamp to photos that I might want to have it on, but I'd have
>> to
>> do it manually before printing. Oh well.
>
> The printing software that comes with the Canon iP6000D has an option to
> add a date
> at print time. I assume it is accessing the EXIF data and a test image
> shows the same
> date stamp as the pictbridge printed photo. I don't know if every printer
> manufacturer
> provides similar date printing options with their software but at least
> Canon does.
>
>
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 8:00:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

To each his own, but I don't generally take photos for art, just for
snapshots, so it's helpful to have the date on them to remember when
something occurred. If I take a portrait or landscape photo for something
more than just a snapshot, I turn off the date feature. I may not always use
it, but it's nice to have, especially if you're sending photos to others, or
sending them by email. They can always remember the date (unlike some old
family photos we have where no one can remember the date cause they are so
old).

Thx.

-Rich.

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:aJ2Cd.12107$9F.1770@fe07.lga...
> Ken wrote:
>> "Rich Belthoff" <rbelthoff@no.spam.carolina.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:o KTBd.3415$lN5.388335@twister.southeast.rr.com...
>>
>>>If you have a pictbridge enable printer, does the date stamp print on the
>>>photos like they do when I take film shots?
>>
>>
>> I just tried a printing from the camera to a pictbridge photoprinter
>> (canon iP6000) straight
>> out of the FZ20. I forst had to enable the date print option in the
>> camera's print menu. The
>> date was printed (in red) on the lower right corner of the print, as
>> expected. Hadn't tried it
>> until you asked but it is nice to know that it available.
>>
>>
>>>So, I guess if the info is stored in the image, there's probably some way
>>>to
>>>add a data stamp to photos that I might want to have it on, but I'd have
>>>to
>>>do it manually before printing. Oh well.
>>
>>
>> The printing software that comes with the Canon iP6000D has an option to
>> add a date
>> at print time. I assume it is accessing the EXIF data and a test image
>> shows the same
>> date stamp as the pictbridge printed photo. I don't know if every printer
>> manufacturer
>> provides similar date printing options with their software but at least
>> Canon does.
>>
>>
> I can't imagine wanting a date printed ON my pictures. So much for art.
>
>
> --
> Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 8:00:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Rich Belthoff wrote:
> To each his own, but I don't generally take photos for art, just for
> snapshots, so it's helpful to have the date on them to remember when
> something occurred. If I take a portrait or landscape photo for something
> more than just a snapshot, I turn off the date feature. I may not always use
> it, but it's nice to have, especially if you're sending photos to others, or
> sending them by email. They can always remember the date (unlike some old
> family photos we have where no one can remember the date cause they are so
> old).
>
> Thx.
>
> -Rich.
>
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:aJ2Cd.12107$9F.1770@fe07.lga...
>
>>Ken wrote:
>>
>>>"Rich Belthoff" <rbelthoff@no.spam.carolina.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>news:o KTBd.3415$lN5.388335@twister.southeast.rr.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>If you have a pictbridge enable printer, does the date stamp print on the
>>>>photos like they do when I take film shots?
>>>
>>>
>>>I just tried a printing from the camera to a pictbridge photoprinter
>>>(canon iP6000) straight
>>>out of the FZ20. I forst had to enable the date print option in the
>>>camera's print menu. The
>>>date was printed (in red) on the lower right corner of the print, as
>>>expected. Hadn't tried it
>>>until you asked but it is nice to know that it available.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>So, I guess if the info is stored in the image, there's probably some way
>>>>to
>>>>add a data stamp to photos that I might want to have it on, but I'd have
>>>>to
>>>>do it manually before printing. Oh well.
>>>
>>>
>>>The printing software that comes with the Canon iP6000D has an option to
>>>add a date
>>>at print time. I assume it is accessing the EXIF data and a test image
>>>shows the same
>>>date stamp as the pictbridge printed photo. I don't know if every printer
>>>manufacturer
>>>provides similar date printing options with their software but at least
>>>Canon does.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I can't imagine wanting a date printed ON my pictures. So much for art.
>>
>>
>>--
>>Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
>
>
>
If someone sends me pictures with dates on them, I know that they don't
value the picture, so why should I? If you send the pictures email,
then they HAVE the date, in the EXIF data. I usually either edit the
date out, or crop the picture to eliminate it. If it is on a print,
then I am not likely to want to display that print.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 8:03:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

While this sounds like a good idea in theory, the biggest problem I see is
that it'll turn my 28mm lens into a 53mm which isn't what I need.

Thx.

-Rich

"Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:TlMBd.99550$K7.27903@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Dutch Flyer" <dutchwings@bbnet.com> wrote in message
> news:5cIBd.9313$6i.7589@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "Rich Belthoff" <rbelthoff@no.spam.carolina.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:3XFBd.12198$z92.242806@twister.southeast.rr.com...
>>> I'm thinking about switching from film to digital. I have a Pentax *ist
>>> 35mm right now, with a Sigma 35-300mm lens, which I think is just great,
>>> but I may want the flexibility of digital.
>>>
>>
>> You should try to stretch it and get a Pentax *ist DSLR body. Digicams
>> like
>> the ones you mentioned don't come close to DSLR performance, especially
>> in terms of speed, noise and color accuracy.
>>
>
> Already said that but they never believe you.
>
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 8:04:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Well I guess not everyone can be an artiste. The rest of us just take
pictures.

Thx.

-Rich.

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:UV7Cd.12796$NN4.9180@fe07.lga...
> Ken wrote:
>> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
>> news:aJ2Cd.12107$9F.1770@fe07.lga...
>>
>>
>>>I can't imagine wanting a date printed ON my pictures. So much for art.
>>
>>
>> Having the original digital picture available with that data does make it
>> a
>> bit redundant. I have no use for it but it does still appear to be
>> popular
>> with some people. Go figure!
>>
>>
>
> I have gotten pictures with the date in yellow, or red on the body of the
> picture. Often it is possible to get rid of it with Photoshop Elements,
> but it is very distracting to me. Rather like a flashing light in my
> face.
> Doesn't seem to bother many people, though. There is no accounting for
> taste...
>
>
> --
> Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 8:05:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Thanks for the thoughts. The biggest drawback to the Lumix, at least in
reviews, has been the battery life. Plus, it's proprietary (although I've
seen on Amazon a substitute battery offered for sale).

Thx.

-Rich

"Lars Bonnesen" <noone@none.invalid> wrote in message
news:41d7cc96$0$181$edfadb0f@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
>
> "Rich Belthoff" <rbelthoff@no.spam.carolina.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:3XFBd.12198$z92.242806@twister.southeast.rr.com...
>
>> I'm looking at the Lumix FZ20 or the Kodak EasyShare DX7500. Any thoughts
>> on one vs. the other? The one thing about the Kodak is that if I register
>> by
>
> I just bougt a new digicam, and was choosing between Canon A95 and Lumix
> FZ20. I am sure that FZ20 is one of the best non-SLR today (espicially
> because of the lens), but I bought the Canon A95 because of the lower
> price, better battery life (normal AA batteries) CompactFlash which I have
> a couple of already.
>
> But I would say go for for Lumix.
>
> Regards, Lars.
>
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 8:07:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Thanks for the thoughts. I did also consider the Nikon, but I like the way
the Lumix looks better. Maybe a silly comparison, but look and feel
sometimes is just as important. I also thinkt he Nikon might be a bit more
expensive.

I wish, though, that someone would come out with a true 28mm digital, like
taking the Lumix and add the extra mm.

Thx.

-Rich

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:33q15jF439tgjU1@individual.net...
> Rich Belthoff wrote:
>> I'm thinking about switching from film to digital. I have a Pentax
>> *ist 35mm right now, with a Sigma 35-300mm lens, which I think is
>> just great, but I may want the flexibility of digital.
>
> The Pentax DSLR, apart from being expensive, will make your lens work like
> a 53 - 460mm zoom.
>
>> I'm looking at the Lumix FZ20 or the Kodak EasyShare DX7500. Any
>> thoughts on one vs. the other? The one thing about the Kodak is that
>> if I register by Jan 31, they'll send me a 1 GB SD card.
>
> The image stabilisation in the FZ20 is well worth having.
>
>> I also saw the Nikon CoolPix, but I think the optical zoom is only 8X.
>
> Nikon have the Coolpix 8800 ZLR which is 10:1 zoom (35 - 350mm) and
> includes image stabilisation.
>
>> Does anybody know if any of these cameras have a "databack" (i.e.,
>> can they print the date on photos)? I've looked at the specs, but I
>> swear I can't see anything.
>
> I can't promise, but the Nikon 8400 has this function, and therefore most
> likely the 8800 does as well. You could download the manual to check if
> you like. However, with digital the date and time is given in information
> at the start of the image file, so you may not need this function.
>
> We went for the Panasonic FZ20 as the best compromise - it has the image
> stabilisation (great for long zooms) and a Leica f/2.8 lens.
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 8:07:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

That's a problem if you really need a true 28mm, which I do. I used to have
a 50mm on my old Pentax ME, and I could never back up far enough in a room
to get everyone in!

-Rich

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:33qjnbF43bnahU1@individual.net...
> Rich Belthoff wrote:
>> Are you saying that if I got the *ist DS that my 28-300mm lens is
>> only going to be 53mm instead of 28? Why is that? If that's the case,
>> then that's a reason not to go with the *ist DS.
>
> Yes. Because the sensor on the DSLR is smaller than a 35mm full frame,
> you only see the field of view equivalent to a lens about 1.5 times the
> focal length. The middle part of the picture is cropped. In that
> respect, the 35 - 300mm zoom you quoted would behave like a 53 - 460mm
> zoom when mounted on a DSLR. A 28mm lens would have the same field of
> view as a 42mm lens.
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 8:09:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I thought I read somewhere that the DX7590 was supposed to take an external
flash, but I could never confirm it on the web page (I probably just missed
it). I use the external flash now and then on my Pentax *ist at this point
when I need to take interior photos far away (like my daughter singing on
stage at a chorus concert).

Thx.

-Rich

"Ron Baird" <ronbaird@kodak.com> wrote in message
news:cre8hr$394$1@news.kodak.com...
> Greetings Rich,
>
> The DX7590 is a great camera and you will be very well pleased with it.
> The
> external flash option is one of my favorite features along with the 10 X
> optical zoom and the electronic viewfinder. I am sorry to say, however,
> that the offer for a 1 gig card was over on Dec 31st. You had to buy the
> camera before the end of the year. The reference to Jan 31st is the
> postmark date.
>
> Please review the following link for details. Did not want you to base
> your
> decision just on that feature. Rather, the camera itself is worth having.
> FYI
>
> http://www.kodak.com/US/en/digital/products/highlights/...
>
> Ron Baird
> Eastman Kodak Company
>
>
>
>
> "Rich Belthoff" <rbelthoff@no.spam.carolina.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:3XFBd.12198$z92.242806@twister.southeast.rr.com...
>> I'm thinking about switching from film to digital. I have a Pentax *ist
> 35mm
>> right now, with a Sigma 35-300mm lens, which I think is just great, but I
>> may want the flexibility of digital.
>>
>> I'm looking at the Lumix FZ20 or the Kodak EasyShare DX7500. Any thoughts
> on
>> one vs. the other? The one thing about the Kodak is that if I register by
>> Jan 31, they'll send me a 1 GB SD card.
>>
>> I also saw the Nikon CoolPix, but I think the optical zoom is only 8X.
>>
>> Does anybody know if any of these cameras have a "databack" (i.e., can
> they
>> print the date on photos)? I've looked at the specs, but I swear I can't
> see
>> anything.
>>
>> Thx.
>>
>> -Rich
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 10:55:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I just bought a Panasonic FZ20. There are generic batteries available -
I got one when I ordered the camera. Battery life hasn't been a problem
yet - it's certainly than older digital cameras I've had, some that went
through batteries every hour or 30 photos. I seem to get several
hundred photos out of the Panasonic battery. Probably not as long a
battery life as my Nikon D70, which seem to run forever on a battery.

The zoom is great, and a big reason I bought the camera. Haven't had it
long enough to tell how well the image stabilization works - frankly I
don't see or feel a difference yet. My only comparison is using IS
lenses on digital SLRs like Nikon and Canon - one sees a difference
through the view finder and can also notice a difference in the quality
of photos taken at slower shutter speeds.

Oh, one other item of note is attaching lens filters to the camera
requires some work. One has to attach the lens shade to use screw-on
filters. It's rather odd - the lens cap fits the actual lens, but there
isn't any threading on the lens for filters. Instead, one has to screw
on the lense shade (which screws onto some external threads on the lens
housing), then use 72 mm filters on the lens shade. But now, I need to
get a 72 mm. lens cap. The point is, I don't think the camera was made
with lens filters in mind. I do a lot of outdoor photography, so this
has been an issue. I need to get a largeer camera case to accommodate
the camera with lens shade on - not a real big deal.

Only other gripe I have with the Panasonic is the grainy ESV viewfinder.
No surprise - most reviewers have noted that also. Isn't a problem
once one gets used to it, but I have to remind myself that the photo
will look much better than what I'm seeing in the viewfinder.

I don't mean to harp on the negatives - it is an awesome camera. I
compared the Panasonic with similar cameras from HP, Kodak and Olympus.
From what I read, the Olympus C-750 is an excellent camera and might
be a viable choice. A lot comes down to personal prefernce and I find
the C-750 a bit small for my hands. The Kodak 7590? with 10 power zoom
looks good on paper, but from what I've read it isn't quite on par with
the Panasonic.

All in all, I think the Panasonic is a wonderful camera, especially for
under $500 US.

John Herron
Austin, TX
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 11:29:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Go here and look for lens adapters
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1033. Also the forum
get a lot of info on all Panasonic cameras

Ken Miller

"John Herron" <jherrontx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:E_fEd.8270$F67.2958@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>I just bought a Panasonic FZ20. There are generic batteries
>available - I got one when I ordered the camera. Battery life hasn't
>been a problem yet - it's certainly than older digital cameras I've
>had, some that went through batteries every hour or 30 photos. I seem
>to get several hundred photos out of the Panasonic battery. Probably
>not as long a battery life as my Nikon D70, which seem to run forever
>on a battery.
>
> The zoom is great, and a big reason I bought the camera. Haven't had
> it long enough to tell how well the image stabilization works -
> frankly I don't see or feel a difference yet. My only comparison is
> using IS lenses on digital SLRs like Nikon and Canon - one sees a
> difference through the view finder and can also notice a difference in
> the quality of photos taken at slower shutter speeds.
>
> Oh, one other item of note is attaching lens filters to the camera
> requires some work. One has to attach the lens shade to use screw-on
> filters. It's rather odd - the lens cap fits the actual lens, but
> there isn't any threading on the lens for filters. Instead, one has
> to screw on the lense shade (which screws onto some external threads
> on the lens housing), then use 72 mm filters on the lens shade. But
> now, I need to get a 72 mm. lens cap. The point is, I don't think the
> camera was made with lens filters in mind. I do a lot of outdoor
> photography, so this has been an issue. I need to get a largeer
> camera case to accommodate the camera with lens shade on - not a real
> big deal.
>
> Only other gripe I have with the Panasonic is the grainy ESV
> viewfinder. No surprise - most reviewers have noted that also. Isn't
> a problem once one gets used to it, but I have to remind myself that
> the photo will look much better than what I'm seeing in the
> viewfinder.
>
> I don't mean to harp on the negatives - it is an awesome camera. I
> compared the Panasonic with similar cameras from HP, Kodak and
> Olympus. From what I read, the Olympus C-750 is an excellent camera
> and might be a viable choice. A lot comes down to personal prefernce
> and I find the C-750 a bit small for my hands. The Kodak 7590? with
> 10 power zoom looks good on paper, but from what I've read it isn't
> quite on par with the Panasonic.
>
> All in all, I think the Panasonic is a wonderful camera, especially
> for under $500 US.
>
> John Herron
> Austin, TX
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 5:58:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Siddhartha,

The DX7590 does use external flash. It does not have a flash shoe as it is
smaller in size than most 35 mm size cameras and a shoe may make it
unwieldy. Rather, it has a synch connection that you can use to plug in and
fire the flash. Works very well and does an excellent job.

Talk to you soon,

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company




> Rich Belthoff wrote:
> > I thought I read somewhere that the DX7590 was supposed to take an
> external
> > flash, but I could never confirm it on the web page (I probably just
> missed
> > it). I use the external flash now and then on my Pentax *ist at this
> point
> > when I need to take interior photos far away (like my daughter
> singing on
> > stage at a chorus concert).
>
> The Kodak 7590 does not have an external flash shoe. Comparing it to
> the Panasonic FZ20, it doesn't have image stabilisation.
>
> I had an Olympus C-750 with 10x optical zoom and IMHO, anything over 5x
> optical zoom is useless without either a tripod or image stabilisation.
> Its like buying a feature that you can never use.
>
!