Kodak EasyShare Z1275 Digital Camera

2.5 stars

I bought a Z1275 and returned it because it does a poor job with indoor photos and generally takes very noisy photos.

General Info on the Camera:

- 12mp compact camera w/metallic grey plastic body
- Schneider-Kreuznach 38x150 (35mm equiv.) 5x f2.8 optical zoom lens
- Full manual controls, plus 20 scene settings and auto everything setting
- HDTV (1280x720) resolution video mode @ 30fps (also does 640x480 and 320x240)
- Uses SD cards and two AA batteries
- Comes with manual, CD with Kodak photo downloading and editing software, wrist strap, two AA batteries, USB cable to connect to computer.

I used a Panasonic Class 4 2gb SD card and Energizer 2500mAh NiMH rechargeable batteries. I shot maybe 150 photos and six 1-10 minute videos. I did not use the USB cable nor did I open the included Kodak software, as I simply download photos from the SD card in my computer's memory card reader and if necessary, edit them with Photosuite 5.0 (really quick and easy for basic editing) or Paint Shop Pro X (harder to use but allows more detailed and precise changes to the photo).

I'll start with the negatives on this camera because I felt they outweighed the positives.

Cons

- Image quality. Most recent Kodaks, including the Z1275, have eliminated the quality setting option (standard, fine, very fine or *, **, ***) and use extremely heavy compression with their JPEG files, so you end up with noisy, grainy photos without much detail. Average JPEG file size when shooting at 12mp was 1.2mb. That's only a .1-.2 mb larger than the photos I used to take with my circa 2001 2mb Canon A20 and half the size of the average file I take with my 5mp Pentax Optio 555. There is no way on earth that such a photo can contain much detail with such heavy compression. Obviously, there are no RAW or TIF settings. I noticed some chromatic aberrations (purple fringing) on some outdoor photos I took. Didn't notice any pincushioning or barrel distortion (image bows in or out), although I was so disappointed by the initial images that I didn't closely scrutinize all of the photos I took. Pictures show a noticeable amount of noise even at ISO settings of 64 or 100, so although in theory you can crop the photo in your photo editing program and still have as much detail as a photo with half the megapixels, this does not work out in practice. Perhaps at some point when the lower 5mp resolution images are blown up so big that they get grainy, this Kodak might give a better hard copy photo, but at anything 8x10 or smaller, my Pentax takes sharper, crisper, more detailed photos. Although this camera features face detection and you can see it pop up a little green box around the head of people you are photographing, I didn't really have any problems focusing and the issue was not lack of focus but lack of clarity and detail.

- Poor indoor and low light photos. The only way you can get tolerable indoor photos is turning off virtually all of the auto settings and doing it manually - otherwise the camera will select a super high ISO setting and you will get photos so grainy they literally look as bad or worse than the average cell phone camera pictures (no exaggeration). Decent low light performance from a 6-8mp camera with a bigger sensor is a heck of a lot more valuable than cramming 10 or 12mp onto a tiny sensor that gives poor low light performance. If you don't believe me on this, read reviews on dpreview.com for the Fujifilm F30 and F31FD 6mp, 1/1/6 sensor cameras that are reputed to have the best low-light performance and image quality of any non-SLR 6mp digital camera and try to buy a F31FD on eBay these days - they are going for $100-$200 more now than they did a year ago when they first came out. As an aside, most professional reviewers have very high praise for the Schneider-Kreuznach lenses that Kodak uses on its more expensive cameras, but given the poor image quality and low light performance, I don't think anyone can readily appreciate if this lens is any better than a standard Kodak lens. I certainly didn't think this was an f2.8 lens, which is supposed to be a fairly fast lens that would allow picture taking in dimmer light conditions.
-

- Not very wide wide-angle lens. The wide-angle setting of this Kodak is only 38mm, which while not uncommon, is also about as non-wide as you are likely to find on any digital camera. When I first started reading digital camera reviews, I always thought that the complaints about not sufficiently wide lenses was rather trivial and it was having an extended zoom at the telephoto end of the zoom that would be important. However, in actual use, I find myself wanting a wider angle lens (not just for this Kodak but for my Pentax and any of the several other digital cameras I've owned) four or five times more often than I wanted a bigger zoom. It would be nice for camera manufacturers to understand that a 3x lens that goes to 28mm on wide angle is more useful for most people than a 4-5x zoom that goes to only 38mm at the widest.

- Worthless digital image stabilization. This camera unfortunately does not have either optical or mechanical image stabilization, which reduces blur from shaky hands. The digital "image stabilization" is actually a complete gimmick - all it does is crank up the ISO settings so that you can use a faster shutter speed to reduce the hand shake, which would work to some extent on a camera that has better high ISO picture quality. The only thing I found this did was jack up the ISO setting to 1600, which had so much noise that it was a worse image than a slightly blurry one. However, I have to say that my Pentax also has a 5x zoom lens and I've never really felt that camera shake-induced blur was a problem at the high end of the zoom and I think image stabilization is really only needed with 10x or greater zoom lenses.

- Poor macro mode. Macro mode on this was even worse than on the $120 Kodak M753 7mp ultra compact camera I briefly bought for my wife (and returned as well). It did not want to focus on objects at the farther range of its macro mode (> 1ft.) which made it useless for taking photos of items to sell on eBay.

- Video cable not included. If you want to play movies you shot in the video mode on an TV, you cannot merely plug the included video cable that comes with every digital camera on the market into the TV, as all of the less expensive current model Kodaks, including the Z1275, do not come with a video cable. If you want to display video or do a large screen photo slideshow, you have two options: shell out $100 MSRP on a Kodak HD video dock, or transfer the files to your computer and burn them onto a CD or DVD.

- Poor manual white balance setting for incandescent lighting. Turned everything a surprisingly deep blue, as if I was using a blue filter but maybe even darker. Fluorescent or auto white balance settings were better and gave a reasonably correct lighting.

- Poor, low resolution screen. Although the screen on this is a decent 2.5" size, it has only about 115,000 pixel in resolution which is half of the resolution of most of its competitors. This makes it a bit more difficult to focus in difficult lighting situations and very difficult to tell the quality of some photos in the review mode.

- Mediocre at best battery life. After around 50 photos (1/2 with flash) and maybe 10 minutes of video, the battery level was already down to one bar and was taking noticeably longer to recharge the flash, although I have no idea how many more photos I could have taken before the battery failed altogether. The 2500mAh energizers I used are good but not the best on the market - 2700mAh Sanyos or Mahas would give longer performance as I suspect that a rechargeable CRV3 battery (shaped like two AA batteries side by side and can work in this camera). I also have no idea about battery life using alkalines, as I prefer not to throw away money and chemical filled objects using poorly performing disposable batteries.

- Can't pause in video mode The Samsung S850 I tried out let you hit the pause button and stop mid-video without having to begin a new video file, saving you the trouble of stitching multiple video files together.

Pros

- Video mode. Strangely, the video setting does not have the problems of the still photo modes and actually takes very good lower light indoor movies. The Z1275 has the highest resolution (HD - 720x1280) movie mode available in a digital camera and takes very nice movies, provided you have a very steady hand or use a tripod, as the camera does not have optical or mechanical image stabilization and also unlike in still photo mode, is very sensitive to camera shake in the HD video mode. The JPEG-4 compression Kodak uses for video files is, in stark contrast to its JPEG still photo compression, adequate for quality and very useful for not having excessively large file sizes - the Z1275's 1280x720 file sizes are slightly smaller than the 640x480 video file sizes from most Canons, meaning you can get more minutes of video on your memory card. I think I was getting around 15-20 minutes of video per gigabyte of storage at the 1280x720 resolution. If I recall correctly, I read somewhere that the maximum video file size is 2gb, but the camera will accept 8gb SDHC cards; if you want to fill an 8gb card with video files, you'll have to do it in four or more videos.

- Full manual, aperture priority and shutter priority modes. This is one of the smallest cameras on the market that has full manual settings, and would make this an ok camera for someone beginning to learn photography. I took the majority of my photos with it in P mode (auto everything but allows you to change a number of settings, unlike the Auto mode which allows no user setting changes) but did take a dozen or two photos in the several manual and semi-manual modes and generally had better results; many of my photos were spur of the moment ones of my two-year old so I generally left it in Program mode to capture those fleeting shots.

- Decent color reproduction. At the normal color setting, when there were no white balance problems, colors were quite accurate, for which Kodak digital cameras are known.

- Compact design. Although this is almost twice as thick as the ultra-compact cameras made by Kodak, Casio and a number of other manufactures, it still is quite pocketable and provided you have a moderately loose pair of pants, it will fit in a men's front jeans pocket, snuggly, though. Few other cameras on the market this size have as many features.

- Decent controls and menus. The Z1275 has pretty sensible controls and menus. This camera does have full manual settings, although there is only one mode on the dial for program, A, S and full manual settings - you can adjust the mode between those four modes with a few hits of the arrow keys. It takes a bit of getting used to and quite frankly, I'd prefer just turning the dial to select one of those other settings like you do with most other digital cameras.

- Slightly longer than typical zoom lens. Everything else being equal, who wouldn't want a 5x instead of a 3-4x lens?

- OK performance - the initial startup on this camera is about average, 2-3 seconds, as are its shot-to-shot times without a flash. Its shot-to-shot times with a flash are somewhat better than average, at about 3 seconds with fresh batteries, which is significantly faster than you will encounter with a number of other cameras, including all of the current Nikon point-and-shoots, Samsungs and the A-series compact-midsize cameras from Canon. Performance for flash photography declines as the batteries' charge diminishes, though, which is common with cameras using AA batteries; proprietary lithium rechargeable batteries generally give you faster flash recharge times than cameras using AA's.

Conclusion.

Overall, I don't recommend this camera unless you are planning on using it primarily for outdoor photography and don't need either a big zoom or a real wide angle lens, or else you just need a digital camera for casual snapshots but want good video with it. Maybe you could get reasonable photos if you shot exclusively in manual mode and were proficient with the manual settings (I'm only semi-proficient and my needs require being able to take good pictures of my 2yr old just snatching up the camera when the moment arises and using the program mode). If you don't use video much and don't care much about flash recharge times, the Canon A570is or A720is will give you better pictures with the former being available for $40-50 less than the Z1275 and the latter being about the same price. The Samsung S850, which can be purchased for around $150, doesn't have quite as high resolution video and has poor battery life but takes somewhat sharper photos, takes slightly better indoor or low light photos and has much better build quality than this Kodak. If you want to stretch your budget another $30-40 and don't need a pocketable camera, the Kodak Z812is is supposedly a significantly better camera than this one as far as image quality, plus it has a 12x lens with optical image stabilization and has the same 1280x720 movie mode.