Kodak 6940 and dissapointment continues...

[Jason]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Well got my wife a 6490 for her b-day back in June.

Her dissapointment in this camera just continues.
She's not the only one.

She has a BA in Photography so shes not a novice.
But she barely touches this camera anymore and when
she does, absolute dissapointment. Almost every shot
she takes is blurred, no matter if its moving or not.
I find myself getting about 50/50 on it , 1/2 pictures
are good other half are bad. So unfortunate considering
my old Kodak 3200 takes way better pictures than this thing
does and I thought I was getting a better camera.

We are off to a trip in Feb to Orlando and my wife has stated she will
take her 35 mm because she doesn't want to ruin her pictures.

Alot of the pictures you can't tell are blurred until we check them
out on our computer.

Anyone else have this experience with this camera? Do I have a dud?
Or is this typical of this camera?

Thanks

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Are you certain that you are allowing sufficient time for the camera to
focus before pressing the take-the-picture button? Pressing that button
about half-way down focusses the shot and fixes the focus. Then pressing
down all the way takes that focussed shot. I find that it is not always
obvious precisely when the shot is focussed before the shot is taken.


"Jason" <dolphans1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4sngs01pg7bqjhom817vf5d5igja1cbmqi@4ax.com...
> Well got my wife a 6490 for her b-day back in June.
>
> Her dissapointment in this camera just continues.
> She's not the only one.
>
> She has a BA in Photography so shes not a novice.
> But she barely touches this camera anymore and when
> she does, absolute dissapointment. Almost every shot
> she takes is blurred, no matter if its moving or not.
> I find myself getting about 50/50 on it , 1/2 pictures
> are good other half are bad. So unfortunate considering
> my old Kodak 3200 takes way better pictures than this thing
> does and I thought I was getting a better camera.
>
> We are off to a trip in Feb to Orlando and my wife has stated she will
> take her 35 mm because she doesn't want to ruin her pictures.
>
> Alot of the pictures you can't tell are blurred until we check them
> out on our computer.
>
> Anyone else have this experience with this camera? Do I have a dud?
> Or is this typical of this camera?
>
> Thanks

 

[Jason]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Yeah its strange I've tried everything. Waited for focus to come into
play.


On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 17:12:23 -0500, "jrodgers" <xjrodgers@.umich.umx>
wrote:

>Are you certain that you are allowing sufficient time for the camera to
>focus before pressing the take-the-picture button? Pressing that button
>about half-way down focusses the shot and fixes the focus. Then pressing
>down all the way takes that focussed shot. I find that it is not always
>obvious precisely when the shot is focussed before the shot is taken.
>
>
>"Jason" <dolphans1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:4sngs01pg7bqjhom817vf5d5igja1cbmqi@4ax.com...
>> Well got my wife a 6490 for her b-day back in June.
>>
>> Her dissapointment in this camera just continues.
>> She's not the only one.
>>
>> She has a BA in Photography so shes not a novice.
>> But she barely touches this camera anymore and when
>> she does, absolute dissapointment. Almost every shot
>> she takes is blurred, no matter if its moving or not.
>> I find myself getting about 50/50 on it , 1/2 pictures
>> are good other half are bad. So unfortunate considering
>> my old Kodak 3200 takes way better pictures than this thing
>> does and I thought I was getting a better camera.
>>
>> We are off to a trip in Feb to Orlando and my wife has stated she will
>> take her 35 mm because she doesn't want to ruin her pictures.
>>
>> Alot of the pictures you can't tell are blurred until we check them
>> out on our computer.
>>
>> Anyone else have this experience with this camera? Do I have a dud?
>> Or is this typical of this camera?
>>
>> Thanks
>

 

[kline]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

"Jason" <dolphans1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fsbhs0d32huaspju8jhfat0i2in3upj9s8@4ax.com...
> Yeah its strange I've tried everything. Waited for focus to come into
> play.
>

I've had a DX6490 since February, not had the probelms with blurred images
that your wife has had, so it may well be that she has a defective camera.

Kline


> On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 17:12:23 -0500, "jrodgers" <xjrodgers@.umich.umx>
> wrote:
>
>>Are you certain that you are allowing sufficient time for the camera to
>>focus before pressing the take-the-picture button? Pressing that button
>>about half-way down focusses the shot and fixes the focus. Then pressing
>>down all the way takes that focussed shot. I find that it is not always
>>obvious precisely when the shot is focussed before the shot is taken.
>>
>>
>>"Jason" <dolphans1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:4sngs01pg7bqjhom817vf5d5igja1cbmqi@4ax.com...
>>> Well got my wife a 6490 for her b-day back in June.
>>>
>>> Her dissapointment in this camera just continues.
>>> She's not the only one.
>>>
>>> She has a BA in Photography so shes not a novice.
>>> But she barely touches this camera anymore and when
>>> she does, absolute dissapointment. Almost every shot
>>> she takes is blurred, no matter if its moving or not.
>>> I find myself getting about 50/50 on it , 1/2 pictures
>>> are good other half are bad. So unfortunate considering
>>> my old Kodak 3200 takes way better pictures than this thing
>>> does and I thought I was getting a better camera.
>>>
>>> We are off to a trip in Feb to Orlando and my wife has stated she will
>>> take her 35 mm because she doesn't want to ruin her pictures.
>>>
>>> Alot of the pictures you can't tell are blurred until we check them
>>> out on our computer.
>>>
>>> Anyone else have this experience with this camera? Do I have a dud?
>>> Or is this typical of this camera?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>
>

 

[Jason]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Guess I will try to send it back. Been a mess since we got it.
See what Kodak can do for us


On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 06:20:41 GMT, "kline"
<coma_ellipse@noospaamyahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"Jason" <dolphans1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:fsbhs0d32huaspju8jhfat0i2in3upj9s8@4ax.com...
>> Yeah its strange I've tried everything. Waited for focus to come into
>> play.
>>
>
>I've had a DX6490 since February, not had the probelms with blurred images
>that your wife has had, so it may well be that she has a defective camera.
>
>Kline
>
>
>> On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 17:12:23 -0500, "jrodgers" <xjrodgers@.umich.umx>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Are you certain that you are allowing sufficient time for the camera to
>>>focus before pressing the take-the-picture button? Pressing that button
>>>about half-way down focusses the shot and fixes the focus. Then pressing
>>>down all the way takes that focussed shot. I find that it is not always
>>>obvious precisely when the shot is focussed before the shot is taken.
>>>
>>>
>>>"Jason" <dolphans1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:4sngs01pg7bqjhom817vf5d5igja1cbmqi@4ax.com...
>>>> Well got my wife a 6490 for her b-day back in June.
>>>>
>>>> Her dissapointment in this camera just continues.
>>>> She's not the only one.
>>>>
>>>> She has a BA in Photography so shes not a novice.
>>>> But she barely touches this camera anymore and when
>>>> she does, absolute dissapointment. Almost every shot
>>>> she takes is blurred, no matter if its moving or not.
>>>> I find myself getting about 50/50 on it , 1/2 pictures
>>>> are good other half are bad. So unfortunate considering
>>>> my old Kodak 3200 takes way better pictures than this thing
>>>> does and I thought I was getting a better camera.
>>>>
>>>> We are off to a trip in Feb to Orlando and my wife has stated she will
>>>> take her 35 mm because she doesn't want to ruin her pictures.
>>>>
>>>> Alot of the pictures you can't tell are blurred until we check them
>>>> out on our computer.
>>>>
>>>> Anyone else have this experience with this camera? Do I have a dud?
>>>> Or is this typical of this camera?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>
>>
>

 

[Chuck]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

1. Check the camera settings. It's possible that something is set in such a
way that the exposure time is too long for a hand held shot, or forcing the
camera to a wide open F stop setting..

2. It's also quite possible that the autofocus is not working properly.

3. Point and shoot boxes such as many of the 3.2M pixel and below seem to
have less of a focus problem than the higher resolution cameras.

"Jason" <dolphans1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5dmis0926chuh37cia49cqjipemagtaep4@4ax.com...
> Guess I will try to send it back. Been a mess since we got it.
> See what Kodak can do for us
>
>
> On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 06:20:41 GMT, "kline"
> <coma_ellipse@noospaamyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jason" <dolphans1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:fsbhs0d32huaspju8jhfat0i2in3upj9s8@4ax.com...
>>> Yeah its strange I've tried everything. Waited for focus to come into
>>> play.
>>>
>>
>>I've had a DX6490 since February, not had the probelms with blurred images
>>that your wife has had, so it may well be that she has a defective camera.
>>
>>Kline
>>
>>
>>> On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 17:12:23 -0500, "jrodgers" <xjrodgers@.umich.umx>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Are you certain that you are allowing sufficient time for the camera to
>>>>focus before pressing the take-the-picture button? Pressing that button
>>>>about half-way down focusses the shot and fixes the focus. Then
>>>>pressing
>>>>down all the way takes that focussed shot. I find that it is not always
>>>>obvious precisely when the shot is focussed before the shot is taken.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Jason" <dolphans1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:4sngs01pg7bqjhom817vf5d5igja1cbmqi@4ax.com...
>>>>> Well got my wife a 6490 for her b-day back in June.
>>>>>
>>>>> Her dissapointment in this camera just continues.
>>>>> She's not the only one.
>>>>>
>>>>> She has a BA in Photography so shes not a novice.
>>>>> But she barely touches this camera anymore and when
>>>>> she does, absolute dissapointment. Almost every shot
>>>>> she takes is blurred, no matter if its moving or not.
>>>>> I find myself getting about 50/50 on it , 1/2 pictures
>>>>> are good other half are bad. So unfortunate considering
>>>>> my old Kodak 3200 takes way better pictures than this thing
>>>>> does and I thought I was getting a better camera.
>>>>>
>>>>> We are off to a trip in Feb to Orlando and my wife has stated she will
>>>>> take her 35 mm because she doesn't want to ruin her pictures.
>>>>>
>>>>> Alot of the pictures you can't tell are blurred until we check them
>>>>> out on our computer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone else have this experience with this camera? Do I have a dud?
>>>>> Or is this typical of this camera?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>
>>
>


---
Outgoing mail is AVG certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Hi Jason,

Not typical at all!

I am glad to help your wife get her camera working the way it should. One
thing to keep in mind, that I am sure you wife will understand as a trained
professional, is taking the time to actuate the shutter correctly. A digital
camera needs to clear the CCD before it actuates the shutter, so it takes a
split second longer in composition than with traditional cameras. Many
photographers had a hard time with that situation when transitioning to
digital. The shutter and aperture etc. perform similarly but the prep of
the CCD took a quarter to a half second longer. See if your wife can hold
composition for just a little longer to see if the results improve.

You can test the camera by finding a subject inside the flash range and
placing the camera on a support, i.e. table, chair, or the like, and setting
the camera on it. Take a picture normally holding the camera then set the
camera on the support and take a picture. See if the results improve. Try
this outside in sunlight as well.

Also, make sure you have set the camera to its defaults as it remembers what
you used before. If your wife set the camera to specific settings that are
remaining, they may be incorrect for the shots she is taking now.

If none of these make a difference, and the results are still blurry, let me
know and I will try to help you further. The camera is capable of great
images and I want to be sure you get the full benefit of the camera.

Talk to you soon, Jason,

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company



"Jason" <dolphans1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4sngs01pg7bqjhom817vf5d5igja1cbmqi@4ax.com...
> Well got my wife a 6490 for her b-day back in June.
>
> Her dissapointment in this camera just continues.
> She's not the only one.
>
> She has a BA in Photography so shes not a novice.
> But she barely touches this camera anymore and when
> she does, absolute dissapointment. Almost every shot
> she takes is blurred, no matter if its moving or not.
> I find myself getting about 50/50 on it , 1/2 pictures
> are good other half are bad. So unfortunate considering
> my old Kodak 3200 takes way better pictures than this thing
> does and I thought I was getting a better camera.
>
> We are off to a trip in Feb to Orlando and my wife has stated she will
> take her 35 mm because she doesn't want to ruin her pictures.
>
> Alot of the pictures you can't tell are blurred until we check them
> out on our computer.
>
> Anyone else have this experience with this camera? Do I have a dud?
> Or is this typical of this camera?
>
> Thanks

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 06:20:41 GMT, "kline"
<coma_ellipse@noospaamyahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"Jason" <dolphans1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:fsbhs0d32huaspju8jhfat0i2in3upj9s8@4ax.com...
>> Yeah its strange I've tried everything. Waited for focus to come into
>> play.
>>
>
>I've had a DX6490 since February, not had the probelms with blurred images
>that your wife has had, so it may well be that she has a defective camera.
>
>Kline
>
===========
Mine is fine too. I have gotten some really remarkable telephoto
shots while hand holding the camera. I also own a D70 but take the
Kodak with me when out hiking or otherwise want a smaller, handier
camera available for surprise photo opportunities.

 

[lefty]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 17:09:30 -0500, R. Makul <k1xv@arrl.net> wrote:

And as you already know... the more you use the telephoto, the more
necessary it to steady the camera against something to prevent shake
and fuzzy pics'.
>On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 06:20:41 GMT, "kline"
><coma_ellipse@noospaamyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jason" <dolphans1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:fsbhs0d32huaspju8jhfat0i2in3upj9s8@4ax.com...
>>> Yeah its strange I've tried everything. Waited for focus to come into
>>> play.
>>>
>>
>>I've had a DX6490 since February, not had the probelms with blurred images
>>that your wife has had, so it may well be that she has a defective camera.
>>
>>Kline
>>
>===========
>Mine is fine too. I have gotten some really remarkable telephoto
>shots while hand holding the camera. I also own a D70 but take the
>Kodak with me when out hiking or otherwise want a smaller, handier
>camera available for surprise photo opportunities.

 

[test]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

I have both a Minolta Dimage S414 and a Kodak DX6490 that I received for
Christmas. I am having similar problems to your wife. My shots are not
totally blurred but in many cases I get greater detail in my S414 shots.
The DX6490 takes good pictures but things of fine detail such as the texture
on clothes or the hair on my brother's head gets a blurred look to it where
when I shoot the same shots on the Dimage S414, I get every bit of detail I
want. It is still better than a point and shoot film camera but after
shooting on a 150 dollar s414 as opposed to the 300 dollar DX6490 and
getting better detail, it is rather disappointing.

The DX6490 has all sorts of features, great natural colors, a 10x optical
zoom on a great lens, an excellent popup flash along with a nice zoom macro
feature so it's a real shame this camera has such a flaw. Even more of a
shame is the reason for the flaw.

Kodak has designed an ultra high level of compression into the firmware of
the camera to save space on the memory card. Even on fine detail, a large
level of JPEG compression is being performed and there is no way to shoot
in RAW mode or to go to a higher quality. It would have been nice if Kodak
gave us a choice on our Jpeg compression. I am still waiting for camera
companies to do like graphics software programs and allow us to choose from
around 100% quality to 20% with 100% being very low compression but high
quality.

please petition Kodak to release a firmware update that gives us an option
for less compression. I am confident that if this camera had a good firmware
it would do much better.
"Jason" <dolphans1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4sngs01pg7bqjhom817vf5d5igja1cbmqi@4ax.com...
> Well got my wife a 6490 for her b-day back in June.
>
> Her dissapointment in this camera just continues.
> She's not the only one.
>
> She has a BA in Photography so shes not a novice.
> But she barely touches this camera anymore and when
> she does, absolute dissapointment. Almost every shot
> she takes is blurred, no matter if its moving or not.
> I find myself getting about 50/50 on it , 1/2 pictures
> are good other half are bad. So unfortunate considering
> my old Kodak 3200 takes way better pictures than this thing
> does and I thought I was getting a better camera.
>
> We are off to a trip in Feb to Orlando and my wife has stated she will
> take her 35 mm because she doesn't want to ruin her pictures.
>
> Alot of the pictures you can't tell are blurred until we check them
> out on our computer.
>
> Anyone else have this experience with this camera? Do I have a dud?
> Or is this typical of this camera?
>
> Thanks

 

[test]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Ron Baird, It is very good to hear from you. I was wondering, is there any
way to get rid of the aggressive compression that shows itself in best mode?
I am happy with the features of my DX6490 (And man does it have a lot of
cool features). On portrait shots or anything with a lot of detail though,
the shots appear smudged or blurred on areas of high detail. It seems to be
compression artifacts (The file sizes are about a third of maximum quality
on my s414). Is there a quality higher than the current best? My Minolta
Dimage S414 tends to capture higher detail in side by side comparison,
especially on hair and skin tones.

I love shooting zoom macro and long range telephoto shots with my new camera
but this flaw reallly hurts what is a great camera. Fortunately this problem
should be fixable with a firmware upgrade. I hope Kodak is working on one
soon.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 00:21:06 -0500, "Test" <Test@test.com> wrote:

>Ron Baird, It is very good to hear from you. I was wondering, is there any
>way to get rid of the aggressive compression that shows itself in best mode?
>I am happy with the features of my DX6490 (And man does it have a lot of
>cool features). On portrait shots or anything with a lot of detail though,
>the shots appear smudged or blurred on areas of high detail. It seems to be
>compression artifacts (The file sizes are about a third of maximum quality
>on my s414). Is there a quality higher than the current best? My Minolta
>Dimage S414 tends to capture higher detail in side by side comparison,
>especially on hair and skin tones.
>
>I love shooting zoom macro and long range telephoto shots with my new camera
>but this flaw reallly hurts what is a great camera. Fortunately this problem
>should be fixable with a firmware upgrade. I hope Kodak is working on one
>soon.

This was also (one of) the deciding points when I bought my first
digital camera; memory was relatively cheap - and even more so now!
so if you get 50 or 65 onto a memory card was of less concern than
the the quality of the data you'd get from the camera. In the
digicams from Kodak I felt the data was too compressed and the
"softer" Canon alternative was the way to go for me.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Greetings Test,

I understand your experience and disappointment about compression. The
condition you note is not pervasive in most images, and you should be able
to get some pretty good results from your camera in the Best setting. The
compression that is used for your camera is the result of a great deal of
work to make the greatest number of people pleased with their cameras. For a
great many people the camera performs exceedingly well.

If you take your camera outside in the sun and set it on a solid support,
tripod if you have one. Focus on a subject that you believe is not all that
you expected in a previous picture. For this test, make sure your subject
is well lit and not in subdued light. Take several pictures within the
optical zoom range. Use the flash to add additional light to the subject for
shots taken inside the flash range. Or, use an external flash. You can use
the optional manual settings if you like.

Essentially, optimize your exposures. Review them to see if you can see an
improvement. Let me know your result and send along if you want a review.

Talk to you soon, Test,

Best regards,

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company





"Test" <Test@test.com> wrote in message news:iyBPd.9145$5t7.7549@fe06.lga...
> Ron Baird, It is very good to hear from you. I was wondering, is there
any
> way to get rid of the aggressive compression that shows itself in best
mode?
> I am happy with the features of my DX6490 (And man does it have a lot of
> cool features). On portrait shots or anything with a lot of detail though,
> the shots appear smudged or blurred on areas of high detail. It seems to
be
> compression artifacts (The file sizes are about a third of maximum quality
> on my s414). Is there a quality higher than the current best? My Minolta
> Dimage S414 tends to capture higher detail in side by side comparison,
> especially on hair and skin tones.
>
> I love shooting zoom macro and long range telephoto shots with my new
camera
> but this flaw reallly hurts what is a great camera. Fortunately this
problem
> should be fixable with a firmware upgrade. I hope Kodak is working on one
> soon.
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Just a quick addition - I also note that some folk are way too quick to
move the camera `after` the shot, and in fact they have moved the
camera during the exposure by being too eager.. It should be easy to
run some tests and determine where the problem lies - also,
out-of-focus looks quite different to motion blur - motion blur has a
streaked, directional quality that is easy to pick with experience.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Rolf Egil Sølvik <rolfegil@c2i.net> wrote in
news:6ehu015d59ukrte5n5k503v8ksrnkgnf6r@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 00:21:06 -0500, "Test" <Test@test.com> wrote:
>
>>Ron Baird, It is very good to hear from you. I was wondering, is
>>there any way to get rid of the aggressive compression that shows
>>itself in best mode? I am happy with the features of my DX6490 (And
>>man does it have a lot of cool features). On portrait shots or
>>anything with a lot of detail though, the shots appear smudged or
>>blurred on areas of high detail. It seems to be compression artifacts
>>(The file sizes are about a third of maximum quality on my s414). Is
>>there a quality higher than the current best? My Minolta Dimage S414
>>tends to capture higher detail in side by side comparison, especially
>>on hair and skin tones.
>>
>>I love shooting zoom macro and long range telephoto shots with my new
>>camera but this flaw reallly hurts what is a great camera. Fortunately
>>this problem should be fixable with a firmware upgrade. I hope Kodak
>>is working on one soon.
>
> This was also (one of) the deciding points when I bought my first
> digital camera; memory was relatively cheap - and even more so now!
> so if you get 50 or 65 onto a memory card was of less concern than
> the the quality of the data you'd get from the camera. In the
> digicams from Kodak I felt the data was too compressed and the
> "softer" Canon alternative was the way to go for me.

Same here. I was close to buying a Kodak and then read a lot about the overly
compressed images. I went with another brand. I think Kodak are shooting themselves in
the foot with their compression level. Then again, maybe it's a brilliant marketing
move. Either way, they lost me.

Being new to digital cameras, I was surprised that they don't have adjustable
compression levels (at least the ones I looked at im my price range didn't).