http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/25/kodaks-easyshare-v610-with-10x-optical-zoom/ Engadget Comments for Kodak's EasyShare V610 with 10x optical zoom http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/25/kodaks-easyshare-v610-with-10x-optical-zoom/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/25/kodaks-easyshare-v610-with-10x-optical-zoom/Apr 25th 2006 9:26AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/25/kodaks-easyshare-v610-with-10x-optical-zoom/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/25/kodaks-easyshare-v610-with-10x-optical-zoom/Apr 25th 2006 9:26AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/25/kodaks-easyshare-v610-with-10x-optical-zoom/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/25/kodaks-easyshare-v610-with-10x-optical-zoom/
Two lenses are better!
I've got an idea, lets make 3!
3? That's sissy.
We're going for 4 fricken lenses.
Man, you guys got nothin'!
Our newest camera has five lenses! Count 'em! 5!
We call it the Kodak Fusion! Is that name taken?]]>Apr 25th 2006 9:49AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/25/kodaks-easyshare-v610-with-10x-optical-zoom/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/25/kodaks-easyshare-v610-with-10x-optical-zoom/Apr 25th 2006 10:05AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/25/kodaks-easyshare-v610-with-10x-optical-zoom/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/25/kodaks-easyshare-v610-with-10x-optical-zoom/Apr 25th 2006 10:10AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/25/kodaks-easyshare-v610-with-10x-optical-zoom/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/25/kodaks-easyshare-v610-with-10x-optical-zoom/
Price check: V610 lists for $449.95 on the Kodak site. It's a lot less than the $600+ quote. You should update your article.

Kodak just pumps out the innovative products and services and lets word-of-mouth do the rest. I'm pretty impressed with Kodak cameras, and think I'll be buying this one to replace my Kodak pocket cam which has served me well for 4 years.

If Sony, Canon, or Nikon came out with something like this, fanboys would claim it would show how far advanced they are relative to Kodak. Well, time to face reality and look in the mirror.]]>Apr 25th 2006 10:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/25/kodaks-easyshare-v610-with-10x-optical-zoom/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/25/kodaks-easyshare-v610-with-10x-optical-zoom/
Oh, give it a rest. It's a nice idea, but it is NOT one that is completely new or unique. Many film cameras in the past have shipped with two or more lenses, and motion picture cameras still do. It's true that there have only been a handful of true dual-lens film cameras (most used the extra lens either just for viewing or for stereographic images) but motion picture cameras use them for this exact same purpose.

All Kodak is doing is taking this: http://www.cwriley.com/Photica/images/1035web.jpg

and this: http://teryx.bobdbob.com/~protius/arri/lens/arri1.jpg

and combining them together.

Again, it's a good idea. I think these are neat cameras and I would consider buying one if I was in the market for a pocket digicam (though I think you guys are underestimating the size of this - it is NOT the same size as the earlier model). But to suggest Kodak is "so much further advanced" than anyone else would be the height of hyperbole. They've taken two ideas that have been around since at least the 1920's and combined them. There's nothing revolutionary or even all that technologically advanced about that.


]]>Apr 25th 2006 10:31AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/25/kodaks-easyshare-v610-with-10x-optical-zoom/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/25/kodaks-easyshare-v610-with-10x-optical-zoom/Apr 25th 2006 10:35AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/25/kodaks-easyshare-v610-with-10x-optical-zoom/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/25/kodaks-easyshare-v610-with-10x-optical-zoom/
The idea is great, and it IS new. No camera had both fixed and zoom lens, imho.

#3. It's easy bashing things without knowing anything about it...]]>Apr 25th 2006 10:44AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/25/kodaks-easyshare-v610-with-10x-optical-zoom/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/25/kodaks-easyshare-v610-with-10x-optical-zoom/Apr 25th 2006 10:44AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/25/kodaks-easyshare-v610-with-10x-optical-zoom/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/25/kodaks-easyshare-v610-with-10x-optical-zoom/Apr 25th 2006 11:16AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/25/kodaks-easyshare-v610-with-10x-optical-zoom/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/25/kodaks-easyshare-v610-with-10x-optical-zoom/
Except that it's an incorrect analogy. Sterescopic cameras and lens turrets utilize standard optical paths and most importantly sacrifice form factor for performance.

It is a correct analogy in the sense that this is an architectural innovation. The difference lies in the fact that previously you had to trade off form factor for zoom performance. This architectural innovation breaks that trade off.

#6: "They've taken two ideas that have been around since at least the 1920's and combined them. There's nothing revolutionary or even all that technologically advanced about that."

If this was the case, you would have a dual-lens camera with turrets on each side. Not exactly pocket-friendly...

However, there is probably a significant amount of technology development to enable this architectural innovation (sensor signal integration, light path integration, algorithm development, ...). I think it's dishonest and misleading to say it's simply a matter of connecting a few modules.

#9: "#5 must have stock in Kodak..."

No, but I should have before they released this. I'm just tired of people flaming certain technologies when they don't really understand it. This is one of the few technologies I really understand (CCD's and CMOS sensors), and it amazes me that people comment on things they don't have the background to.

Similar problem with the HD-DVD vs. Blu-ray posts. BR advocates point out how the major advantage of BR is 1080p. Then it turned out HD-DVD supports 1080p as well, just not in the first generation hardware players. The real discussion lies in other issues (required compression for a regular length movie to achieve 1080p, fundamental costs of each technology, network effects, etc.) I'm not educated enough in these areas to comment, so I don't. Simple as that.]]>Apr 25th 2006 11:36AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/25/kodaks-easyshare-v610-with-10x-optical-zoom/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/25/kodaks-easyshare-v610-with-10x-optical-zoom/Apr 25th 2006 11:55AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/25/kodaks-easyshare-v610-with-10x-optical-zoom/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/25/kodaks-easyshare-v610-with-10x-optical-zoom/con: no ultra wide Zoom, Bigger body.

curious: why it still needs two lenses?

Anyway, if battery life is still sucks, and poor flash range,
it is out of my interest.]]>Apr 25th 2006 12:04PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/25/kodaks-easyshare-v610-with-10x-optical-zoom/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/25/kodaks-easyshare-v610-with-10x-optical-zoom/Apr 25th 2006 12:46PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/25/kodaks-easyshare-v610-with-10x-optical-zoom/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/25/kodaks-easyshare-v610-with-10x-optical-zoom/
Weird that it would be different from the V570, though. Same battery is used here as the V570 and V550 (looks like V530 uses different battery). Assuming same power requirements, it should result in the same 150 shots per charge (CIPA standard).

Same efficiency as Canon PowerShot SD450, Canon PowerShot SD550; better than Pentax Optio S6. Middle of the road to mediocre relative to competition, according to V570 dcresources review. In reality, though, it's easier to keep batteries charged with dock as well as cheaper batteries available than competitors (Kodak site lists battery as $20; probably can find cheaper elsewhere; $60 on Canon site for SD550 replacement batts).

Just a little reality check.

Of course, better than carrying two separate cameras (each with a battery) or lugging around a big one and all its accessories. You could carry 10 batteries and get 1500 shots @ 10x instead :)]]>Apr 25th 2006 2:19PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/25/kodaks-easyshare-v610-with-10x-optical-zoom/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/25/kodaks-easyshare-v610-with-10x-optical-zoom/Apr 25th 2006 2:44PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/25/kodaks-easyshare-v610-with-10x-optical-zoom/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/25/kodaks-easyshare-v610-with-10x-optical-zoom/http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=8912&pq-locale=en_US&CMP=KNC-8P3E53373771]]>Apr 25th 2006 2:57PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/25/kodaks-easyshare-v610-with-10x-optical-zoom/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/25/kodaks-easyshare-v610-with-10x-optical-zoom/
Extra Kodak batteries are pretty cheap -- less than $20. So the 120 shots per charge isn't THAT big of an issue.

Secondly, Kodak plays funny with the marketing of the 570, which they market as a "5x" camera. They are fiddling with the specs to make it seem like its a continous 5X optical zoom... which it isn't. Acutally, it's a fixed wide-angle AND a 3X lens. They are taking the fixed wide angle of 28mm and tele of 105mm and calling it 5X.

So I have a feeling it's something similar here... not a TRUE 10X. The wide angle lens will be fixed at 28mm. And then maybe the optical part is 4X or 5X.]]>Apr 25th 2006 7:39PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/25/kodaks-easyshare-v610-with-10x-optical-zoom/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/25/kodaks-easyshare-v610-with-10x-optical-zoom/
Trust me thier is nothing more annoying than when your battery runs low on your camera. Screens shut off to save power. Wear and tear of having to change out the battery all the time, having to carry and charge extra batteries is pain, especually when its a pocket camera, who wants to have a nice small camera only to carry around in the other pocket extra battiers. Camera makers could learn a few tricks from Casio. Some of there camera funtions may fall short but i mean the ex-z600 550 shots! WOW! Kodak only 135 shots. Give me a break. The camera sounds great but AGAIN they are falling short on one of the most important things "Battery Life". Thansk again kodak for peaking my intrest only to completly let me down with another great camera with SUCKY BATTERY LIFE!

PS. IF you think 135 shots is bad just imagin using that nice zoom range all the time along with all the other nice features you'll probally be looking at more like 50 shots per a charge. Crap kodak why couldn't you have just made it have a decent battery life. Arrrr]]>Apr 26th 2006 1:10AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/04/25/kodaks-easyshare-v610-with-10x-optical-zoom/http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/25/kodaks-easyshare-v610-with-10x-optical-zoom/http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18685

Apparently it has one 38-114mm (equiv) lens and one 130-380mm.]]>Apr 26th 2006 2:22AM