This was part of a post on eBay..

"Well, I did my "test" yesterday and had 4x6 prints made at my local Sam's Club which consistently produces prints of outstanding faithful color and excellent contrast. I shot a colorful Folger coffee can at around ten feet. I set it up on a garden chair and used ISO 200 on both cameras; 70mm focal length on the Nikon and whatever it took to get the same image size on the Kodak; exposure in open shade was 1/100th at F5.6. I used a very sturdy tripod. I used the highest res/quality on the Kodak which produces a file (at 4MP) of around .9MB. I used Medium size/normal quality on the Nikon which is about 4MP and a file size also of around .9MB.
I made only one shot with the Kodak. With the Nikon I made an equivalent shot (call it the reference shot). Then shot Vivid, Sharp, Soft, and one last shot at Basic/small quality. In comparing the two shots that are apples to apples, I found little difference. Sharpness was equal; color identical; contrast identical. Where I saw a difference was in the painted arms of the chair. The chair is a very high quality, powder coated all metal frame and the powder coated paint has a speckled finish. The Nikon rendered the very subtle speckling better than the Kodak. But the difference was so inconsequential that I doubt if it would ever show up in any significant way in travel or people photos. The other four Nikon shots were as follows: Vivid: Looked like the exposure had been cut very slightly and exhibited slightly better contrast. Sharp: NO perceptible difference from the reference shot. Soft: NO perceptible difference. Basic/small quality: NO perceptible difference.

Conclusions: 1)The Kodak stands up extremely well for a $300 camera against a $1300 camera within its range of capabilities. In hindsight I should have shot one Nikon photo at the highest resolution and lowest compression but I doubt if I would have seen any difference in a 4 x 6 print. I have made superb 8 x 10's from the Kodak camera in the past.

2) I probably will shoot on Vivid as a default on my Nikon in the future except where I desire lower contrast or for flesh tones.

3) I am surprised to find no perceptible difference among the Nikon reference shot and the two sharpness modified shots. Perhaps differences might be seen in larger prints.

4) For vacation travel, I will never worry if my Nikon malfunctions because I know I will get very high quality pictures with the Kodak as backup. (I also always carry a film SLR with 24-70 lens).

These results are good enough and conclusive enough that I will not bother to have 8x10's made to try to ferret out differences. I know the Kodak makes superb 8x10's and probably also 11x14's. Of course there is no question that if I were to go up to 16x20 or larger the Nikon would be superior.

But within the limitations of outdoor daylight photos, the Kodak did far better than anyone could reasonable expect and I am really pleased that I bought it before the Nikon became available.

If anyone has any ideas for an interesting test, I have time on my hands (retired nine years ago at 56) and love to do this stuff. My local Sam's is straight down the street four miles away so getting quality prints done cheaply is easy. 14 cents for 4x6's and $1.79 for 8x10's."

Comments?

Peter

There is no doubt that digital p&s's produce remarkable results. What lens did you have on the D70? I did a similar test against an Olympus Stylus 400 and with the 18-70 kit lens on the D70 the results were pretty similar. At 4X6 or even 8x10 you probably couldn't tell much difference. The Olympus flash did blow out more highlights though. But, when I put the 50/1.8 on the D70, the Nikon blew the Olympus away for sharpness. Also, and this is why I got a DSLR, the ergonomics of setting changes are much better on the D70. Like you, we have both camera types and both get used.

This is not my post, but someone on eBay. Sorry, thought that was clear.

Peter

This very comprehensive account proves that the Kodak camera is almost as good at taking pictures of coffee cans on garden chairs as Nikon D70.

My Coolpix 5000 seems to take great pictures time to time. Overlysharpened to compensate for the poor glass, but impressive non the less.

I just came back from the first day of shooting with D70. Finally, a digital camera for me that I can shoot with instead of fight all the time trying to make it do what I want it to do.

I also wonder if it's possible to put a 70-200 f/2.8 VR lens on that Kodak...

>This very comprehensive account proves that the Kodak camera
>is almost as good at taking pictures of coffee cans on
>garden chairs as Nikon D70.

It's lucky that the Kodak had 'Coffee Can' mode on its dial, otherwise the user would have been stuck..

Compacts can be great - most of the shots on my website were taken with a 3.2Mp Olympus: a super little camera. But compacts are simply too limited for serious or creative photography and the eBay user was comparing a family hatchback with a sports car. Yes, they both do 50mph, but the sports car does much more.

John
www.blokewithacamera.co.uk

John
www.blokewithacamera.co.uk

Someone said once that that camera is just an instrument that would make the photographer's live better. It really doesn't matter what camera you have. I do have a D70 and I'd debate anyone that a p&s has more features than my camera

D70 rocked,D80 was better,D300 is just awesome!
http://www.goodstockimages.com

Hmmmm I have taken great photos on pinhole cameras and $2 plastic cameras so anything is possible BUT!!!!!!



I'm sorry but that is like comparing an economy compact car to a BMW

Yes they both have 4 wheels and get from A to B but.......

There is so much more to cameras to be considered I used to work for Kodak so I will not comment but there are some large corporations who are so focused on bulk sales they go for a mass market who are only interested in how cheap they can buy a camera, (BANG FOR BUCK) they are the ultimate disposable and cheap and nasty.

There are so many companies climbing onto the digital camera bandwagon that a shakeout of the market is inevitable the old adage applies

" if you are happy with it then it is a good camera. It does not matter that I think it is a heap of junk.

na

All of the little point and shoots, I have asked about at the pro camera stores have a shutter delay so long you can not shoot action.

How does this Kodak do on that.

The D70 is a action camera. Is the Kodak. That is $1000 question.

ledmun

A small number of P&S cameras are improving on the delays they have. The Canon G6 sounds much better from the reviews for instance.

However my 3 year old, 2MP, HP618 is SO much better than a brand new 5MP Samsung my friends Dad was proudly carting around at my friends wedding last summer. There must have been a 20 second delay to write the image to the card before he could take another picture, and the shutter delay.. woah.

My old HP, if you focus first, was nearly instant but it still doesn't compare to my D70 which has no need to refocus ever time you take a picture. The D70's startup time is, well, less than it takes me to compose so I never notice it. Its less than the time it takes to put the camera to my face I know you all know this so i guess my point is that not all P&S cameras are created equal and some are not that bad. Though the bad ones are really bad.

David