Are Kodak P850 better than Panasonic FZ5?

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

dimension are the same,zoom 12 x also,but P850 have:

Video 640x480
Excellent lcd 2,5 with 230.000 pixels
excellent evf with 230.000 pixels
manual focus(?)
raw
ecc.

I think;if site tests aren't much negative,i buy her....
What do you think about....?

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

David J Taylor ha scritto:

> tiresia2@hotmail.it wrote:
> > dimension are the same,zoom 12 x also,but P850 have:
> >
> > Video 640x480
> > Excellent lcd 2,5 with 230.000 pixels
> > excellent evf with 230.000 pixels
> > manual focus(?)
> > raw
> > ecc.
> >
> > I think;if site tests aren't much negative,i buy her....
> > What do you think about....?
>
> Kodak cameras have a reputation for producing a poor JPEG image - perhaps
> too much compression? I would check image quality very carefully. Even
> Canon have not been able to produce a lens (on their S2) matching the
> quality of the Panasonic FZ5, so can Kodak?
>
> David

...agree David.
But for me ,a little bit more of noise or purple fringing (or a little
less resolution),isn't a problem.
Kodak also have 50 asa !!(pana 80,273 difference)
i hope in a test....
hi

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

Daniel Silevitch wrote:
[]
> To be fair, the differences between the S2 and the FZ5 are pretty
> minor.
> Real, but minor.

Agreed, unless movie resolution is a critical factor for someone.

> I have no idea about the Kodak, though. A quick look
> through a couple of the usual review sites didn't turn up any reviews
> of
> the P850.

That's part of the problem - there are a lot of unanswered questions about
that camera. The lack of reviews concerns me slightly - why no reviews?
Some sites seems not to review cameras which might get less than a
"Recommended" rating....

David

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

I have had the Kodak P850 for two weeks now, it is my first digital
camera. If you have any questions, or would like sample photos, let me
know. If you would like to see the users manual to see details on the
settings provided, you can look at it here:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/ser [...] -path=7549

Good Luck deciding,
Joe



Daniel Silevitch wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 14:53:13 GMT, David J Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote:
> > Daniel Silevitch wrote:
> > []
> >> To be fair, the differences between the S2 and the FZ5 are pretty
> >> minor.
> >> Real, but minor.
> >
> > Agreed, unless movie resolution is a critical factor for someone.
> >
> >> I have no idea about the Kodak, though. A quick look
> >> through a couple of the usual review sites didn't turn up any reviews
> >> of the P850.
> >
> > That's part of the problem - there are a lot of unanswered questions about
> > that camera. The lack of reviews concerns me slightly - why no reviews?
> > Some sites seems not to review cameras which might get less than a
> > "Recommended" rating....
>
> There are some reviews of the lower-spec Kodak superzoom (the Z740). Of
> course, that has a 10x (unstabilized) lens, vs the 12x of the P850, so
> extrapolating to the higher-end model probably isn't all that useful.
> The major complaint about the Z740 was the very slow data handling;
> before considering an 850, I'd want some assurance that it didn't suffer
> from the same ills.
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/kodakz740/
>
> -dms

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

On 26 Sep 2005 10:01:45 -0700, josepharmbruster@gmail.com <josepharmbruster@gmail.com> wrote:
> Daniel Silevitch wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 14:53:13 GMT, David J Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote:
>> > Daniel Silevitch wrote:
>> > []
>> >> To be fair, the differences between the S2 and the FZ5 are pretty
>> >> minor.
>> >> Real, but minor.
>> >
>> > Agreed, unless movie resolution is a critical factor for someone.
>> >
>> >> I have no idea about the Kodak, though. A quick look
>> >> through a couple of the usual review sites didn't turn up any reviews
>> >> of the P850.
>> >
>> > That's part of the problem - there are a lot of unanswered questions about
>> > that camera. The lack of reviews concerns me slightly - why no reviews?
>> > Some sites seems not to review cameras which might get less than a
>> > "Recommended" rating....
>>
>> There are some reviews of the lower-spec Kodak superzoom (the Z740). Of
>> course, that has a 10x (unstabilized) lens, vs the 12x of the P850, so
>> extrapolating to the higher-end model probably isn't all that useful.
>> The major complaint about the Z740 was the very slow data handling;
>> before considering an 850, I'd want some assurance that it didn't suffer
>> from the same ills.
>>
>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/kodakz740/
>
> I have had the Kodak P850 for two weeks now, it is my first digital
> camera. If you have any questions, or would like sample photos, let me
> know. If you would like to see the users manual to see details on the
> settings provided, you can look at it here:
> http://www.kodak.com/global/en/ser [...] -path=7549
>
> Good Luck deciding,

I was perhaps a bit unclear. I'm not in the market for such a camera
myself; I bought an FZ5 some months ago and am quite happy with it. I
was speaking hypothetically, listing the questions and concerns I'd have
if I were shopping today.

What is your general sense of the camera? If you had to repeat the
buying decision, would you still opt for the P850, or switch to one of
the competing models like the FZ5 or the S2 IS?

-dms

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

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 20:05:24 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
>>
>> That's part of the problem - there are a lot of unanswered questions about
>> that camera. The lack of reviews concerns me slightly - why no reviews?
>> Some sites seems not to review cameras which might get less than a
>> "Recommended" rating....
>>
> Full specs are on the Kodak site. Since the camera was announced only
> on Aug 2, it probably hasn't become available for testing yet.
> If it lives up to the specs, it should be a real winner.

It's available now; B&H, for one, has it in stock. I assume that reviews
should start showing up any time now. Reading through the specs, it
looks like a very nice camera (though without a thorough test, it's hard
to be sure). A couple of possible minuses that I noticed going through
the spec sheet:

- Stabilizer. The one blurb I saw about the stabilizer only claims two
stops of advantage; Canon and Panasonic get three or more stops worth
from their stabilizers. Could be a more conservative marketing division,
could be a real difference. That's definitely something to check in a
real review, since a good stabilizer makes a big difference in this
class of camera.

- Speed. Shot-to-shot time is given as a bit under 2 seconds, which is
somewhat on the slow speed.

- Weight. At 400 g, it's about 1/3 heavier than the FZ5 (both weights
w/o battery).

I'm nit-picking here, of course. As I said above, the specs indicate
that this is a very good camera. To say anything more would need a real
review. Going through the Kodak forum on dpreview.com, I found a few
threads giving initial user reports:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/ [...] d=15124214
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/ [...] d=15144399
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/ [...] d=15144061

-dms