can someone compare the z915 with the z950? Is the quality of the camera body and/or pictures better with the z950?
839013
I have both cameras, and while the Z915 exterior seems a little cheaper to the eye, the Z950 actually creaks a little bit when you press on the top cover buttons. So far, both cameras have performed well and seem rugged enough for normal use. The pictures from both are very good, but not excellent. If Kodak could combine the good points of both cameras they would really have a winner. As it is, they have two rather mediocre but decent and servicable cameras.
839014
I have both cameras (z915 and z950) and I would say that the main thing you get with the z950 over the z915 is manual focus and HD video. The 12 mp resolution on the z950 is not significantly better than the 10 mp of the z915, nor is the Schnieder-Kruznach lens on the z950 noticably better than the Retinar lens on the z915. The VGA video on the z915 looks great on non-HD TV sets. Since the z915 can be had for about $130, as opposed to $180 for the z950, I'd say the z915 offers more bang for the buck.
1291325
I bought the same Kodak ZD710 at Walmart for $149.99 about a year ago. I've been very pleased with it. I love the optical zoom and high resolution of the photos. I haven't had any issue with noise in the photos at all. I work in the graphics industry and use this on a professional level. Being a designer though it also means I inevitable photoshop nearly all the pictures I take. But am happy with my ZD710
1815166
I'm having the same debate with myself! and as far as I can tell (novice!) the extra mega pixels won't make that much dif and I would rather have better zoom (personal pref) capabilites. I look for the increased ISO range now. From what people have told me, some of these cameras don't do so well in low light and the higher that no. is the better the pic will be with less light-that's if I understood it correctly! BTW, I have decided to get the 890, I believe it's the wide angle one of the two! good luck and enjoy-think about a warranty of some type-that was also encouraged by my photo buddies!
1678708
Did either of you consider the 900 Titanium? It seems like a nice camera at the same price. Thoughts?
359953
I just ordered the ZS7. I first tried the F80 but returned it after finding pictures had a remarkable amount of compression artifact. All the files come out around 4 MP (max) and faces start to look like pastel when you zoom in. That said, it does perform better in low light. If you don't care about HD video consider the F70, which I read is better. (For that matter, the ZS3 is supposed to be better, but I want the bells and whistles.)
288589
I have just ordered an FZ35. I was previously holding out for the FZ40, but after reading the reviews on the FZ100, I have concluded that the FZ35 is a BETTER product than the FZ40 will be! According to many FZ35 owners who have purchased an FZ100 (which has the same lens, zoom, and CCD chip as the FZ40) the image quality is NOT as good on the FZ100 as it is on the FZ35. This is attributed to the increased Megapixels that are jammed onto a SMALLER CCD chip. In order to add the increased zoom, Panasonic had to shrink the size of the CCD chip, and at the same time they jammed in more pixels. Consequence: loss of image quality. Low light photos on the FZ100 are apparently grainier on the FZ100 than on the FZ35 as well. Add to that the fact that the FZ40 will only accept microchipped Panasonic batteries (at 3-4 times the price of aftermarket batteries) and the choice is clear! Stop waiting! Buy an FZ35. I just did myself!
1765244
It seems slow to me also. Do you like the camera? So far I am NOT thrilled with it. My point and shoot Panasonic ZS give me better results.
1595862
I was also on the fence between these cameras. Tried both out at the local camera shop. I will probably be doing a fair amount of video too, and the Nikon P500 had the worst image stabilization I have ever seen. The FZ100 was rock solid in comparison. I also recently found out that the FZ100 can have filters and telephoto extensions added to the lens. I'm going to wait a few weeks to see if it gets upgraded, but if not the FZ100 seems the way to go. The Nikon felt cheap in comparison.
2159516
Based on your criteria, I'd go with the Elph 310. I've been debating between these two cameras and I'm planning on going with the 310. If you can live without the manual controls and RAW support, the 310 seems better to me in a bunch of categories (including price). Here's a little comparison that I put together (please forgive the alignment issues - Amazon took out all my spacing)... S95 Elph 310 zoom 3.8x 8x megapix 10mp 12mp lens range 28mm-105mm 28-224 aperture 2.0-4.9 3.0-5.9 weight 6.88oz 4.9oz sensor type ccd cmos sensor size 7.5x5.5 6.2 x 4.6 manual controls yes no raw support yes no screen 3" 3" boot-to-shot 2.33 2 seconds shot-to-shot 2.78 0.45 shutter lag 0.55 0.3 continuous fps 0.9 3.4 video modes 720p-24fps 1024p-24, 720p-30, 120fsp (slo-mo) flash range 6.5m 4m
843094
I don't know about the ZS9. But the ZS8 is available right now, new, on amazon. I own the ZS9 and have researched this line of cameras (owned 3 or 4 of them). The only difference between the ZS8 and ZS9, is that the ZS9 has stereo microphones for video, and the ZS8 has mono microphones. Unless specific feature is your deal-breaker, the ZS8 should be an acceptable substitute for the ZS9.
24386
You can read my text review of D90 here: http://prashchopra.blogspot.com/2009/01/nikon-d90-review-video-and-text.html . I returned a week old Nikon D90 to get a Canon 50d. The reason was simple: D90 boasts many advanced features, but it lacked some basic tools needed for good imaging, e.g. the live view is a gimmick, it doesnt let you see exposure simulation AND the live view image at large zooms is extrapolated from smaller images, hard to get accurate focus assessment. Hope that review helps. Edit to add (1/28/09): I have since owned and reviewed a Canon 50d camera (http://prashchopra.blogspot.com/2009/01/canon-50d-vs-nikon-d90-review.html). Remember: I am not a professional photographer. But I work in the field of imaging, and thus have a little practical sense of the end result quality. Despite the higher speed and better live-view and the lens autofocus micro0adjustment feature and the 3 extra mega pixels, the 50d failed to match with teh D90 I owned before it in terms if end result quality (ignoring any post processing.. somparing just out of the camera RAW results). I found the 50d to be more noisy as compared to the D90. I found myself going back to the D9 results to compare the 50d images more than often. My copy of 50d also gave me mount problems aith a brand new lens... I have since returned it and am very very happy with a D90. I have tried three cameras then... and my personal winner is Nikon D90 now... its low light and high ISO performance is unbeatable in its category I think. No matter what lab tests say, D90 produced much cleaner images for the same shot settings than the Canon 50d. Good luck!
542770
Both are nice cameras. I own a700 and a900, bought the a99, difficult to get used to. Totally different beast. If you get one, do not get rid of the 700 until you are convinced. Joe
1507430
you may want to search the customer reviews on these cameras. I've seen comparisons of the 2 in the reviews and usually, the ZS3 wins out. one reviewer said the difference in the ois wasn't noticeable. hope that helps.
1077277
yes. i was in the same situation. this is the third generation since the s95, which was a great camera that i took all over the world. after the s95 the industry changed from ccd to cmos sensors which are better all around - lower noise (better in low light), better color resolution and fidelity, and 12 vs 10 megapixels. the lens is faster and a little sharper and 5x vs 3x telephoto. you can shoot up to 8 frames per second for action vs about 2 on the s95. also has wifi for immediate upload to your phone, and a touch screen and the screen quality is much better. you should see a substantial improvement in photo quality. yes. i was in the same situation. this is the third generation since the s95, which was a great camera that i took all over the world. after the s95 the industry changed from ccd to cmos sensors which are better all around - lower noise (better in low light), better color resolution and fidelity, and 12 vs 10 megapixels. the lens is faster and a little sharper and 5x vs 3x telephoto. you can shoot up to 8 frames per second for action vs about 2 on the s95. also has wifi for immediate upload to your phone, and a touch screen and the screen quality is much better. you should see a substantial... » Read More yes. i was in the same situation. this is the third generation since the s95, which was a great camera that i took all over the world. after the s95 the industry changed from ccd to cmos sensors which are better all around - lower noise (better in low light), better color resolution and fidelity, and 12 vs 10 megapixels. the lens is faster and a little sharper and 5x vs 3x telephoto. you can shoot up to 8 frames per second for action vs about 2 on the s95. also has wifi for immediate upload to your phone, and a touch screen and the screen quality is much better. you should see a substantial improvement in photo quality. « Show Less
1563171
Hmm... I'm still trying out the SX but am tempted to try out the ZS3 with all the great reviews on the camera. The Canon is working all right but not as great as I would like. It might be the fact that I'm too lazy to read the instructions. It does get tiring a bit when you have to adjust the light with each shot. How's the color and focus quality in ZS3? I noticed that TZ5 have focus problems when zoomed and trying to focus on small white objects in the light. Does ZS3 have the same problem? Is ZS3 much better than TZ5? I'm not sure if it's worth it to get ZS3 if the quality isn't too much better since the price of the 2 is very different. Hmm... I'm still trying out the SX but am tempted to try out the ZS3 with all the great reviews on the camera. The Canon is working all right but not as great as I would like. It might be the fact that I'm too lazy to read the instructions. It does get tiring a bit when you have to adjust the light with each shot. How's the color and focus quality in ZS3? I noticed that TZ5 have focus problems when zoomed and trying to focus on small white objects in the light. Does ZS3 have the same problem? Is ZS3 much better than TZ5? I'm not sure if it's worth it to get ZS3 if the quality isn't too much... » Read More Hmm... I'm still trying out the SX but am tempted to try out the ZS3 with all the great reviews on the camera. The Canon is working all right but not as great as I would like. It might be the fact that I'm too lazy to read the instructions. It does get tiring a bit when you have to adjust the light with each shot. How's the color and focus quality in ZS3? I noticed that TZ5 have focus problems when zoomed and trying to focus on small white objects in the light. Does ZS3 have the same problem? Is ZS3 much better than TZ5? I'm not sure if it's worth it to get ZS3 if the quality isn't too much better since the price of the 2 is very different. « Show Less
1507427
Thank you for your help and relay of information. I have purchased the ZS3 and absolutely love it! It just came, so am eager to spend some 'quality' time with it.
1887673
$300+ price difference between SD1400 and S90 or S95. I'll stick with SD1400 for my usage.