Kodak DC120 reviewed in July 1997 Windows Sources Magazine
This is a long post on the Kodak DC120 review. My conclusion is that this camera desperately needs N-hand because it is uneconomical with flash cards at the "uncompressed" resolution.
When I got home today, (from my day job <g>), I found in the mail the latest issue of Windows Sources mag. In it, they review the Kodak DC120 digital camera. Talk about serendipity. Since I now have some facts and not just educated guesses, let me share some of the article, and my latest thoughts. In what follows, the EMPHATIC CAPITALIZATION is mine, not theirs. Excerpts from the article are in "double-quotes".
Windows Sources July 1997 P. 140 'My Computer' section, article entitled 'A Megapixel For Less Than A Grand'
The product is given a 'Stellar' designation. Maybe 10% of reviewed products are given this. The rest are not given any designation.
In the 'About' sidebar box at the end of the article it says:
"Pros: Well designed; relatively high resolution; can save images UNCOMPRESSED.
Cons: NOT ENOUGH MEMORY.
The Kodak DC120 is a handy camera, but to take advantage of its best features, you'll have to SPRING FOR EXTRA MEMORY"
The article begins:
"If you're looking for maximum digital image resolution at a minimal price, look no further than Kodak's DC120 Zoom Digital Camera. With a resolution of 1.2 megapixels, and an estimated street price of $999, the DC120 is the first camera to deliver such high resolution for less than $1000. But it acheives this only by stretching the specs a little. The 1.2 megapixels are interpolated up from 836,400 pixels, and to make the magic price point, the camera ships with ONLY enough memory to hold 7 pictures at best resolution (2 if you save them uncompressed, 20 if you compress the lowest resolution). This doesn't make the DC120 any less of a camera - overall, its got a great combination of features and performance - it just makes it a little less of a bargain than it seems."
So it ships with enough storage for 2 "uncompressed" pictures for $999. "Minimal price" indeed! But wait, that's without a flash card. We'll get to them in a bit. But be aware of this: the "uncompressed" setting is really a loss-less form of compression. Otherwise, you could not hold even two 1280x960x3 pictures in the onboard 2MB. This is alluded to later in the article when they refer to the pictures being stored in "Kodak's proprietary image format". So an "uncompressed" picture needs about 1MB of in-camera or flash card memory. It expands to a 3.5MB file when downloaded to the PC.
BTW, the camera does not ship with any flash cards, according to both the article and Kodak's web page:
kodak.com
The article goes on for a few column-inches about the camera's photographic (vs.digital) specs. Then:
"In addition, the DC120 sports a 1.6-inch color LCD (for previewing images) that ingeniously tilts up so you can insert compact-flash cards to supplement the MEAGER memory."
Though the article uses the plural, CARDS, I assume the DC120 only holds one card at a time, but can take different ones, of various capacities.
"A standard LCD shows the current settings, .... includ(ing) ... image quality (1280 by 960 UNCOMPRESSED or three different LOSSY compression levels). You can organize images directly in albums..."
Lossy means degraded picture quality. Kodak couldn't resist using a little doublespeak in their nomenclature: they call the resolutions "good", "better", "best" and "uncompressed". So "uncompressed" is actually better than "best". And I can't wait to organize those 2 pictures into "albums". <g> I apologize for the cheap shot.
The article goes on to damn the camera with faint praise:
"Overall the camera takes good pictures with acceptable color quality and satisfactory exposures .... The relatively high-resolution images didn't seem to suffer from the interpolation process; retouching the images didn't exaggerate CCD-capture artifacts, nor did it expose any excessive blurriness around the edges."
There are enough weasel words in that sentence to make a politician blush: "overall", "good", "acceptable", "satisfactory", "relatively", "seem", "exaggerate", "excessive". This is definitely not awe inspiring stuff.
Now the part you've all been waiting for: the flash cards.
"Our test unit worked flawlessly with a $99 2MB Kodak compact-flash card as well as with an Eiger Labs 15 MB card."
"Given its expense, the DC120 isn't for everyone; with the ESSENTIAL accessories (AC adaptor and $259 10MB flash card), the street price hovers more around $1300 than $999.
The DC120, however offers a unique combination of IMPORTANT features: It's the only camera (for now) that offers both zoom capability and UNCOMPRESSED images. That makes a big difference if you need a camera that works in a variety of situations, or if you want a flexible input device for artistic purposes."
So 10MB costs around $250 (unless you are fool enough to pay $100 for the 2MB cards). Let's assume by the time N-hand comes out, flash will cost half of what it does today. So 20MB will cost around $250. N-hand will deliver the same 20MB for less than $10. That will get you 20 "uncompressed" pictures, the resolution I want. The 'best' (pardon the expression) resolution to use if you want to get them printed, and especially, enlarged.
Now, Jon, go back to your post where you said:
>I do think that your wish to store 100 pictures per outing is a bit unusual. Let's be reasonable and put storage at 50 pictures per outing. Uncle Harry's slide shows are *already* boring, let's not tax family relations! :) <
techstocks.com
Forget my original 100, and forget my first compromise of 60. In December it will cost around $500 extra for the ability to take 40 "uncompressed" pictures in the field. Perhaps the same amount as the camera itself by then.
Now if you had your choice, and an identical camera was configured with N-hand, with the same aftermarket 40 picture capacity only costing $20, wouldn't that be a big part of your purchasing decision?
If you say 'No', then I'd say that is 'a bit unusual'. |
