I've been struggling over whether to get a Nikon 950 or a Kodak DC265 for some time now. I like the extra manual control the 950 gives you but I'm very troubled over the blueish tint in all the sample images I've seen. Compare the outdoor portrait between the Kodak and the Nikon and look at how much better the Kodak renders the skin color and the color on the siding. Also compare the house pictures and look at the difference in the grass colors and how much better the detail is in the bricks. My question is: could this blueish tint problem be a defect in the prototype camera? Will new pictures be taken when the production units come out?

-- Mike Roda (mroda@ipass.net), April 20, 1999

Answers

Why are you very troubled by a camera? It is supposed to make you happy taking picture, knowing that there is no such thing as perfect cameras.

-- (abc@abc.com), April 21, 1999.

I think that the choice must be done between the Canon Pro 70, the Nikon 950 and the Olympus 2000 (and maybe the Fuji 2,3Mpixels who is coming in may). I agree that the samples are really bad, comparing with the pictures of the Canon for example. And we do not know if it s a problem of the prototype or a real problem. But the DC265 has no wide angle (i am not sure) and 1,4 Mpix is too low as all digital cameras of may have 2,1 - 2,3 Mpix and 3Mpix is for january...so not the Kodak !

-- Philippe Lepoivre Paris (phl@cogitel.fr), April 21, 1999.

True, the Kodak has only 1.5M pixels but most of the extra pixels on the other cameras (1600x1200) is in the vertical range which would be cropped off if you were printing on 4x6 or 5x7 paper. I checked the pictures of the Nikon 900 and 950 and both are producing a rather harsh blueish tint and muted colors. I don't like the Canon Pro70 because it has only a 2.5 optical zoom starting at 28mm equivalent which isn't much better than my current Kodak DC210. And I don't like the Olympus 2000 either because it uses SmartMedia cards. I wouldn't rule out the Kodak just because it isn't a 2M pixel camera.

-- Mike Roda (mroda@ipass.net), April 21, 1999.

I agree that the Kodak is the winner. See my reply to the post on 5/10 asking about the Nikon 950 vs. the DC265. A software upgradeable camera is the way to go (why would you buy a PC that you couldn't upgrade???), and it's pictures win hands down!

-- Derek Weller (wrestler@worldnet.att.net), May 10, 1999.

The Nikon 950 also has the ability to upgrade software. Down load the software to the CF card, insert it into the camera, and turn the camera on. It's a done deal. Kodak has only the very slight advantage of not having to use a card reader/writer on the computer. It can use the USB connection to transfer software from the computer to the camera. This is an insignificant advantage to most users. Most people will want to have a reader for getting images to the computer anyway. It's much easier than having to connect the camera to the computer for each image download.

-- Steve (yuna-boat-captain@ibm.net), May 11, 1999.

I am a new owner of DC-265 and very disappointed to know that it doesn't produce brilliant pics like CP950. If you aim to shoot lots of macro pics, then buy Nikon CP950. It gives excellent details and superb colors.

-- Alex (shop@origami.no), May 25, 1999.