>> |
Anonymous
I honestly don't understand where you are coming from. Kodak is one of the great pioneer companies in photography and it's been around even longer than Nikon. Given that a lot of their development budget over the company's life has been focused on the production of better photosensitive devices. You'd seriously be at a loss if you were to simply ignore kodak's great achievements in the field of photography and their contributions even today.
Schneider optics, which are used in OP's camera are also some of the leading optics manufacturers in Germany, most certainly on par with the Carl Zeiss of old, pretty much like Leica, except heavily underrated.
As for this camera, you need no more than take a swift look around the camera to know it's a really good camera for the money. First off, Kodak took it's cue for ergonomics from professional SLR designs. This isn't a flimsy camera and it isn't difficult to handle (unlike a certain entry-level model produced by Canon). Its control menus are certainly on par with Nikons' spot-on ones, if not better, given that there is a much better integration in this camera's system than there is with Nikon's entry level SLR's, perhaps even a higher level. The optics and imaging device are certainly where it's at with this model, however. Through Kodak's expertise (and history) in the creation of light-sensitive devices, you can most certainly assume, without a doubt, that this camera is at a whole different level than you'd find in an SLR. This sensor, coupled with Schneider's optics makes gives this camera the edge over the similarly-priced cameras produced by the Japanese market.
You guys need to do some reading on these companies instead of dissing OP's camera. You'll realize how much you've missed and even lost by buying an expensive all-in-one SLR system when you could have achieved comparable/superior quality images from a well-priced, spot-on solution as the one OP has put on the table.
|