PDA

View Full Version : Response to Kodak P850 review



Techie419
12-07-2005, 01:09 AM
I have owned the Kodak P850 for about a month now. It was the 4th Kodak camera that I have purchased in recent years. I do not endorse Kodak, nor am I employed by them or any other camera manufacture.

With that said, I would like to comment that I found the Kodak P850 review here to be rather disappointing. The review created little if any excitement about this product and it provides information that does anything but misrepresent it in my opinion. (no disrespect to the reviewer intended, it was a well done review...I just disagree with some of it)

There are comments about poor ISO performance (400) low light focusing, battery life, LCD/EVF quality, manual focus, the dial setups, and USB.

Also, the P850 was not favored when compared to other cameras in the same class. That's fine, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. And maybe that is what a review is, an "opinion". But i felt the negative qualities about the camera are overrated, and the positive qualities are underrated.

This is an excellent camera. It is easy to use, has a LARGE high quality LCD (yes high quality), takes crisp photos, and provides excellent pictures for a UZ camera in it's price range. Compared to the other models on the market, it blows them away. Yes, I said it. Again, it blows them away. This was not covered in the review. It was portrayed as an "average" camera with mild pros and cons.

Remember, no one camera is perfect. And the competitive models have their own flaws too (perhaps I should read the reviews on them). But for a camera that is now running about $320 with decent software, image stabilization, a hot shoe, tons of scene modes, AND a wide selection of custom accessories, what else is there in the same league? NOTHING!
(Seriously, show me one! please and I will just go away quietly)

Just recently a forum user posted this in the Kodak area:

"The 850 is just not up to par with the competition in the crowded UZ market. The review on this site criticizes its 'fuzzy' images, poor high ISO performance (unusable 400/800), below average battery life, poor LCD resolution, poor low light visibility on LCD and EVF, poor low light focusing, poor manual focus, poor handling, loud zoom, painfully slow startup time (3.5 seconds!), min. focus distance in macro mode (10cm!), etc."

As a user of this camera, this is SAD!!!
It's really too bad that someone would be steered away from owning this camera based on the review here.

Therefore, I felt it necessary to post a response in that forum about those "issues". There are also included below:

1) Fuzzy images
This could happen with a subject very close to the camera when not in macro mode... or if the focus is not aimed or locked on the subject. But in my experiences with this model I did not find a serious problem with images being "soft focused". The image stabilization made images more crisp than ever.

2) Noise in ISO 400

There is not one UZ camera that has low noise in this ISO. The Panasonic has got reviews at epinions which users complained about noise in that model. Seriously,, this is a sub $500 price point camera, what do you expect? If you want to get low noise in ISO 400/800 then step up to a Digital SLR like the Canon Rebel or Nikon D70. I wonder what a user/reviewer of this camera expects it to do.

3) Battery Life

It was ranked #3 on the list when compared to other competitive cameras. And that makes the battery life bad? Myself, I took hundreds of photos with this camera at a time and it lasts and lasts. The battery life is not at all below average.

4) poor LCD resolution, poor low light visibility on LCD and EVF

Personally, I found 2.5 inch LCD to be a great feature and also of good quality. It did not have poor resolution in my opinion (compare it to the small little tiny LCD in the Canon IS). This is a great feature of this camera, and the largest LCD in its class - why was that left out?.

The EVF too. Good quality. What is the problem?

5) poor low light focusing

its better than the kodak z740 even without the AF lamp. If you want great low light focusing then you have to get a camera with a laser or infrared senor, and pay a much higher price for it. You wont get much better than the P850 in low light focusing.

6) poor manual focus

It's the first Kodak that even has manual focus. It works if you know how to use it. And if manual focus is that important than you need an SLR.

7) poor handling

no problems in that category

8) loud zoom

finally something I can agree with. It does have loud zoom, especially compared to other competitive models. And with my P850 I didnt get the movie mode to "silence" the zoom motor (it can be heard well) so that is another dissapointment I had.

9) painfully slow startup time (3.5 seconds!)

3.5 seconds is painfully slow? not in my opinion. How fast is the fastest? 2.5 seconds? Is this even a consideration for a serious photographer? Come on!

10) min. focus distance in macro mode (10cm!),

If macro is what you need a camera for than you have the wrong camera.
It is a HIGH ZOOM camera. They are not known for great macros.

Rex914
12-07-2005, 03:03 PM
Not to downplay your comments because as you say yourself, everybody is entitled to an opinion, but have you tried out and held all of the competing cameras like the S2 IS, Sony H1, Panasonic FZ5 and FZ20? Just based on your buying history, it appears that you're a fan of Kodak and haven't given another brand a chance. I'm sorry if that offends you, but seeing that you've bought 4 Kodak cameras, that's the only reasonable conclusion that one could come to...

The P850 is a good camera, but you have to put everything in context. Kodak was the last to introduce a camera of this type and what it offered was merely sufficient and on par but not standout. If this camera came out even a year ago, things would be different. Again, have you given a serious look at the competition? Now that I reread your post, it really looks like you haven't because you're praising Kodak for features that everybody else has (or most have) plus you say that you have yet to read the reviews.

The Kodak has entered into what amounts to the most crowded segment of the digicam market. EVERYBODY offers 12x zoom, image stabilization, manual controls, enough modes, a 2.5" screen (or 2.0" swivel screen), decent software and a bunch of great accessories for around $400 or less. This is a given in 2005. In 2003 it wasn't, and your comments would have had more merit back then.

Just picking out a few of your comments...

Macro - When the competition is offering a min. focusing distance down to 0cm-2cm, 10cm becomes relatively poor. Not bad, but putting in the context of the others, not as good. And who says that ultrazooms are not great for macros?

Startup Time - The S2 IS starts up in 1.2 seconds, The H1 starts up in under 2 seconds, the FZ5 takes 3 seconds. So the Kodak is very sluggish in this respect. Even my dinky, 5 year old Kodak DC3400 can startup quicker than the P850. Maybe you don't care, but a camera that takes over 3 seconds to startup can cause missed photo opportunities. You're just settling for less and calling 3.5 seconds OK to try and justify the camera. If the average startup time in the industry is around 2 seconds, this really needs to be improved.

LCD/EVF - Size is NOT everything. I'd rather have a high resolution 2" screen (especially given that it swivels - there's no 2.5" swivel screen in existence yet) than a low resolution 2.5" screen that just looks fuzzy (like the older Sony 2.5" screens). Moreover, most camera LCD's nowadays "gain up" in low light. The Kodak hardly does, and Jeff ALWAYS looks for this in every single camera he reviews. Read the rest of his reviews (I personally have read nearly all of them over the course of a year) because you're taking things out of context.

Fuzzy Images - You're mixing up soft photos with blurred photos caused by camera shake and whatnot. Image Stabilization does NOT magically make your photos sharp. It simply reduces the effects of handshake. Jeff is referring to the images as being soft and fuzzy or in other words, in need of some sharpening.

Poor Handling - Where? All he said was that a button or two was contrary to intuition, but nowhere did he criticize the ergonomics. The user who posted that comment misread Jeff's review.

Price - Where are you seeing this for $320? Cheapest is around $360 with most stores around $400. Dell doesn't count. :)

Battery Life - BL is measured up to some standard which mixes flash photos and no-flash photos. If you're getting higher than the stated amount, it's because you turn off the LCD or don't flash as much. This is objective data provided by Kodak or by the CIPA standard (http://www.cipa.jp/english/). You can't dispute it.

3rd best? More like second WORST... I hate to bicker, but your comment is just plain wrong... I even took up my time to arrange these in order from worst battery life to best.

---------------------------------
Nikon Coolpix 8800 240 shots EN-EL7
Kodak EasyShare P850 250 shots KLIC-5001
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ30 280 shots CGA-S006
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H1 290 shots 2100 mAh NIMH
Kodak EasyShare Z7590 300 shots KLIC-5001
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ5 300 shots CGA-S002
Fuji FinePix S9000 340 shots 2500 mAh NiMH AA
Konica Minolta DiMAGE Z6 420 shots 2500 mAh AA NiMH
Fuji FinePix S5200 500 shots 2500 mAh NiMH AA
Samsung Digimax Pro815 500 shots SLB-1974
Canon PowerShot S2 IS 550 shots 2300 mAh NIMH
---------------------------------

With all due respect, look at the competition, read the reviews of the competing cameras, and after you put everything in context, you'll see that Jeff gave this camera a fair shake. He has handled far, far more cameras than anybody else here and certainly more than you and me, so he really has the final word especially when it comes to comparing cameras. I kindly ask you to think outside the box a little and to acknowledge that there are other companies out there who've already made a camera like this a year (http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/panasonic/dmc_fz20-review/index.shtml) or even two years ago (http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/panasonic/dmc_fz10-review/index.shtml).

Techie419
12-07-2005, 06:14 PM
Rex,
I appreciate your detailed reply and your comments are well taken.

I do not consider myself to be an expert on digital cams or photography, nor am I an expert on Kodak. But my orginal comments were a fair estimate of conclusions at that time. Perhaps your additional insight will change my opinions on some matters, and I will research it further, no doubt.

As for comparison of other manufacture cameras. Good point, I have not owned them. But the reason is because after reading detailed reviews on them I found that the "COMPLETE package" with these model cameras did not suit my individual interest/needs, and so I chose NOT to purchase them.

The primary point in my post was not to indicate that the author/review was wrong. He has far more experience than I. But what I did feel at that time (and still do) is that the positive features of (again) the COMPLETE package of what Kodak offers, were greatly understated. Though Kodak was "late" in bringing to market a camera in this class, it should be better recognized that there are NO other cameras on the market even similar to the P850. And though there are some minor downfalls (USB for one, which doesnt even matter if you use a reader) and the other apparant problems (LCD,EVF,battery) are so minor it doesnt even matter (well to me I suppose).

Having many features is good, a nice LCD is good, and fast USB, well all the better. But when it comes to everything that is packed into this camera, the good picture quality, and the reasonable price it sells for, you get what you pay for and much more. That's why I bought it, and thats why I own it instead of the others.

Quite honestly, I have spent an over amount of time "sticking up" for Kodak. And I do not know why. But before buying I shopped for months, and studied all the ins and outs of each and every camera in that class. The P850 won me over with everything it offered. Guess I'm hooked now.

Thanks again for your comments, again they are well taken. I am going to go back and read them again, and see what I may have missed and what should be reconsidered. Perhaps I will read through the other competitive camera reviews again as well.

Until then..
Regards

Rex914
12-07-2005, 06:32 PM
Thanks for your kind reply. I came off a bit harsh in some areas, but I tried to take a bit of an objective look at these cameras as I've been watching the industry evolve over the past couple years. Kodak has taken some steps in the right direction by introducing products catering to the enthusiast audience, and I appreciate that they're not just playing the megapixel / large screen game unlike a certain company starting with an O. I'm personally impressed by the P880 and hope to see more thoughtful products like that (and maybe the future revisions of the P850) in the coming years.

Thanks again for your reply and taking a peek at the "other" side. :)

- Rex914