Camera Labs

I work at a Ritz location, which doesn't sell Kodak cameras because we spent more time/money repairing them than selling them. Today, a trio of ignorant camera shoppers came into the shop demanding to see the "EasyShare camera that is 10mp, has image stabilization, shoots HD Video, and is under $200."

I told them we didnt sell Kodak products, and a camera with those specifications sounded a bit of a scam. They gave me a scornful look and took off out of the store.

How mistaken I was!! I found a new product on the Kodak website, te EasyShare M1033. Here are a few specs:


* 10 megapixel
* 3x optical zoom
* 3 inch LCD
* HD picture capture
* ISO 64 - 3200

(http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier. ... cale=en_US)



Now, this sounds a bit like the "IMPOSSIBLE CAMERA", as my fellow associates and I call a camera that has a ton of features in a very inexpensive package.

Is this camera too good to be true, for a P/S? There must be some catch, and I can't find too many decent reviews to come to a conclusion.

Anybody got some feedback? THANKS!

_________________
---------------
Nikon D80 || AF-S DX 18-135mm
Nikon N75 || AF 28-80mm G , AF 70-300mm G, AF 50mm f1.8D, AF 35mm f2.0 (all Nikkor)

Im not sure whats the Great deal.

10mpx becoming the market standar, 7 are 8 are the cheapest and closest rivals.
3x optical zoom, standard too, 5x seen on premium cameras
3 inch lcd, the catch 230k
HD video, 720p, much compacts are really close to that line
ISO 64-3200, well high iso's are useless in compacts

I havent tried it, but it seems like the average consumer camera, plus as you say some consumer kodaks have lame quality.

_________________
40D, 28-135 3.5-5.6 IS USM, 50mm 1.8 II
4GB Extreme III

My DA || My Flickr || My Metroflog

Seems like a nice camera but it's nothing extraordinary nowadays. Also, it doesn't have anti-shake which is fast becoming a standard feature in all but entry level models.

_________________
Graham
Flickr

I think it'll be pretty horrible. I tried to do some math earlier, I shot my uncle who knows a lot more about the workings of cameras than me and email, he said I was all wrong, and pointed me to a sensor sizing chart over at DP review. here comes the mathy mumbo jumbo:

The Sensor of the New kodak here the M1033 is 7.7x6.16mm giving a total Surface Area(SA) of 46.432mm^2

10,000000p/46.432mm= 215368.8pixles/mm

Compared to an APS-C sized sensor (23.7x15.7 SA=372.09mm^2)

10,000000p/372.09= 26875.2pixles/mm

Which now that i do all the math and stuff, looks like a bunch of giberish, but the point here is, having such a pixel density (lots of pixels/mm) will produce low quality images because the pixels are so much smaller, and the images will be noisier. a 1/2.3 inch sensor @10mp not such a good thing.

Thats my two sense, but I do like kodaks, I used to have a $130 Kodak ES C130 (4mp) and it out preformed my 6mp $300 Fuji FP s6000fd(6500fd).


Jake

_________________
Jake O'Connell, 40D Crew
Canon EOS 40D | 28-135mm IS | 50mm f/1.8 |Vivitar DF 383 | Vivitar 285hv
My Flickr
my Blog
"Photography isn't so much about the results as it is the collective experience, your interactions with people and with the world"

Hah! That'll teach him not to disagree with you.


Ben