-

Kodak EasyShare M1033 user reviews and ratings

-

-

Kodak EasyShare M1033 user reviews Date: 2008-06-13 - 14:49:02 Author: Karin Mayer Rating:    I have been using the M1033 for about 1 week now and am VERY impressed. I have had some of the prior V and Z series cameras and did not have much hope for this one honestly. This camera is fast in operation, focuses quickly and takes great pictures with ease in most situations. Low light performance is better than expected but do not expect Fuji F30 like performance in low light. I agree alot with what the reviewer said, especially the fact that it always defaults to Smart Capture. The Smart Capture mode is OK but I prefer to use P mode. The HD video is OK but more hype than anything without a tripod. I wish the camera had optical stabilization but honestly this has not been an issue so far. As a matter of fact, I tested this camera against a Canon SD800IS and the new Nikon S52 with optical stabilization and the Kodak took better pictures every time. It is built like a tank. A surprising offer from Kodak at this price point... Date: 2008-06-18 - 07:09:13 Author: PCMag Rating:    PC Magazine reivew Kodak M1033. Editor rating 4 out of 5. No test pictures. A very high level review. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2306026,00.asp Date: 2009-01-20 - 11:11:55 Author: Charlie Howard Rating:    Kodak M1033 experience UPDATE: I bought an M1033 and am generally pleased with it, although still thinking about exchanging it (and some extra money) for something else. The M1033 has digital Image Stabilization for Video only; no IS for stills. The video IS tends to make the image float around... it smooths out hand movements, rather than suppress them. Video image quality is very, very good, and optical zoom works while in video mode. This has nothing to do with why I bought the camera, but it's probably a better video recorder than the similarly-priced Flip. STILL IMAGE QUALITY: pretty good, if there's enough light (the bane of all digicams, especially compact ones). The image quality probably is better than I'm prepared to believe, because I keep comparing M1033 images with same-scene images taken with my Nikon D40x, expecting the Nikon to be much better, but it isn't, unless the lighting is marginal or I need wider angle or more telephoto: the M1033 has the equivalent of 35-105mm, while the Nikon's lenses give me 27-82mm or 82-300mm. On the other hand, the M1033 cost $130, weighs less than 5 ounces, and slips unnoticed into a shirt pocket... which is why I bought it. The Nikon, with lenses, cost $900, and travels on my shoulder in a camera bag that probably weighs over 5 pounds... so it often stays home. FEATURES: The M1033 starts up in less than 3 seconds, always in "Smart Capture" mode, where it does everything for you and gives you only two options: resolution (10MB max) and whether or not to use the flash. It has face recognition that actually seems to work pretty well, and automatically optimizes color balance, exposure, and focus for those faces... which, along with its tiny size, is why I wanted something like the M1033. It's easy to switch to Program, Scene, or Video modes. Program Mode gives you some control, mostly over ISO, but no control over shuttere speed or f-stop. ISO CONTROL (Very important): Most compact cameras are terrible in low light when used in Automatic mode, which is how most people apparently use them. (My daughter got married recently, and we got hundreds of image files from guests. Except for the ones taken with with a Canon XTI, the pictures all were taken with compact cameras in Auto mode, and all of the evening-outdoor shots were so underexposed as to be useless. The same is true of the majority of inside shots of the Reception. PhotoShop could not rescue them. *BUT*, all of those cameras could have taken much better pictures if people had gone out of AUTO mode and boosted the ISO to 800 or even 1600; and increased the Exposure Compensation to +2.0. Yes, there would have been noise, but there also would have been usable images. The M1033 lets you set ISO up to 3200, or, at lower resolutions, 6400. Before you say "useless, they'll be nothing but noise", let me refer to my comments above (noise is better than nothing), and also to add the observation that at ISO 800, there is almost no noise at all (in AUTO modes, the camera won't go above ISO 400). At ISO 1600 and 3200, there's a lot of noise, but the images definitely are usable (including faces), and noise reduction programs can make those images pretty good. Yes, that's a lot more work than just being able to get a properly-exposed lower-ISO image, but for that, I'd have to use my Nikon D40x with an external flash, the 50mm f/1.8 Prime lens, and probably ISO 800... and have all of them with me.

-

-

Add review/rating Date/Time: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 - 07:26:15 Type this code: Your name:                              Title: Opinion: Rate this product: 1 2 3 4 5

-

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 videos

Olympus E-P2 videos

Samsung TL225 videos

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV videos

Canon PowerShot G11 videos

Nikon D3S videos

Canon PowerShot SX120 IS videos

More ...