I am in the market for a digital camera and am currently comparing and contrasting the Kodak 265, the Nikon 950, and the Olympus 2000Z. I would appreciate any comments from anyone who has bought any of these models or someone who has done a similar comparison and came to a conclusion. Is the difference in the storage media ie Compact Flash vs SmartMedia a big issue or will they both eventually get to similar capacities? Thank in advance for any info. Eilish

-- Eilish Hathaway (eilish@ucla.edu), June 10, 1999

Answers

I would replace the Kodak DC265 with an Epson 750Z in your comparing. I have a 750z and like it very much. From the reviews I have seen it is doing better than the Kodak DC265. The Kodak has been described as "just OK". I have seen 2 cases where the 750z has been compared to the Nikon 950 and held up well. That is saying a lot since it is about half the price of the 950. Just a suggestion. If you would like to hear more about the 750z let me know.

-- Bob G. (rgreg88721@hotmail.com), June 10, 1999.

This is a follow-up to Bob G.'s response to your question: I have been seriously considering an Epson 750Z, but have hesitated actually buying it because it doesn't include red eye reduction capability as one of its flash options. I assume this can be accomplished using whatever software comes with the camera, but I've been told it's peferable to avoid red eye in the first place than to try to get rid of it after the fact. The other thing I'm wondering is why the PC Watch reviewer named Yamada doesn't even mention the 750Z among his top choices in the 750Z's resolution range. I don't know if that really means much or not, but since this guy is regularly referred to in the "NEWS" section of this site, I thought I'd mention it. Finally, it would help all of us if this site were able to get whatever cooperation it needs from Epson to be able to evaluate/review the 750Z.

-- Glenn Kammen (babinder@gte.net), June 11, 1999.

I will consider the Epson, however, I agree that red eye reduction is an important feature. Are there any plans for Epson to add this to a future model? Or download an upgrad to the existing one?

-- Eilish Hathaway (eilish@ucla.edu), June 11, 1999.

Of all of the camera I have been around I didn't really care for any of their red-eye reduction methods. Some are inadequite other have enough delay between the first red-eye reduction flash and the real flash that when photographing people they think the shot is done and start moving after the first flash. I guess I will keep fixing it after the fact. The Epson 750Z has many other good features that I feel far outway the lack of Red-eye reduction.

Things like slowing the shutter speed down when focusing in low light. Solar powered backlighting for outdoor shot to save battery power and provide a more useable LCD viewfinder outdoors (no other camera has that). LCD update rate that is fast enough to take action shots even with maximum zoom (3x optical and 2X digital, try that with a Kodak). About 3 seconds between shots at the highest resolution (non-HyPict)with flash. Accurate color balance, exposure, and focus. I print most of my photos on my Epson Photo 750 printer without any modification between the camera and printer. An indicator to let you know when focus is acheived as well as indicator for low light non-flash shots that you need to avoid shaking camera. A LCD viewfinder that is clear and sharp enough to let you know if you got a good shot before you view it on you computer screen. Hy-Pict technology that interpolates the image to a higher resolution so the JPEG algorithm can do a better job at mantaning a good picture with out the cost of storing the image uncompressed and using up a large portion of the memory. It comes with NiMH batteries, rapid charger, and camera case. It is easy on batteries too. We can take up to 100 photos with flash and LCD viewer on one set of batteries. It is very easy to use. I spent about 2 minutes showing my wife the controls and she has been doing great with it.

I haven't heard one reliability problem with the Epson 750Z. It seems like the Olympus 2000 and Nikon 950 are having a lot of problems.

The only minus is short flash range (under 10ft), but that is not that uncommon for digital camera. I am working on a slave flash arrangement to help with this short coming.

I feel it will be at least another year before a better digital camera better than the Epson 750Z for overall value will be on the market. For now I will keep using my 750Z and waiting for that day to arrive.

-- Bob G. (rgreg88721@hotmail.com), June 11, 1999.

I was looking for a 2.1 pixel camera because I do macro work - insects, etc, and thought I'd need to crop and blow them up. BUT, I am seriously considering the Minolta Dimage EX1500 and the Olympus D-400 Zoom instead. I can't stomach the price of the CoolPix 950 and Oly2000. These seem to do what I need. I am waiting to actually try a digital camera (just found a friend who knows someone who bought the CoolPix) to see if the delay between pressing the button and actually taking the picture is going to bother me too much.

Will look into the Epson based on the other person's comments also.

-- Beth Spaugh (bspaugh@cce.cornell.edu), June 16, 1999.