Originally, I had been looking at the DC240 vs. the Epson PC750Z. I pretty much decided upon the Kodak, until the Minolta came into the picture. The EX1500 is only $80 or so more than the Kodak, which I could probably deal with. So, taking price out of the picture, which camera is better?

As far as what I would want to do with the camera:

- pictures for a web site or to send over e-mail - pictures for print - very little, if any macro work - some manual control over the camera for creative shots

Thanks, Mike

-- Michael Berger (mike_berger@mck.com), March 29, 1999

Answers

I've been shopping around and looked pretty hard at the EX 1500 as well and have some likes/dislikes:

Like: Relatively small size Excellent progressive scan CCD Low compression JPEG mode Decent build quality (better than Olympus D400Z) Uses CF cards Upgradeable CCD and lens unit Large buffer for fast burst mode shooting Fairly advanced TTL multi-segment metering or spot metering Exposure lock for shooting panoramas Time lapse option

Dislike: Slow refresh rate on LCD display Grainy LCD display Barrel distortion at wide angle (others have this too) Batteries + CF card in same compartment Pretty crappy viewfinder

The primary reason I dropped it from consideration is the poor LCD display AND the poor viewfinder. If one or the other was good then I might've purchased the unit.

I've been looking for reviews on the 750Z recently as well but haven't been able to even get my hands on the unit. I've heard good things about the 700 but Epson isn't really renowned for its optics. And I really want to know what kind of metering system it uses, especially if it has spot metering capability. The solar window feature is nice though.

Haven't looked at the DC240 but it does look interesting....

KS

-- Ken Sun (kens@isn.com), March 30, 1999.

Look at my posting "Upgrade the DC-120". As a primer, the remaining Kodak DC-120's are selling for about $350 (www.20-20consumer.com - a very good site). The optics match the best of the current market, even though it's a lowly 1.2 megapixel. The flash, shutter, lens brightness and macro are much better than the current Kodak generation. For your use, the resolution is well beyond web requirements. At 1280 x 960, it fills a 1280 x 960 screen resolution just fine, and I get excellent 5x7 prints and good 8x10's.

It also has the advantage of 37mm filter threads for accessories, and a remote flash synch. It has the missing spot meter on the current Kodaks. It's a much, much better "camera" than the DC-265, it just doesn't have the latest electronics. I wasn't willing to trade mine in for a free DC-265 replacement.

I too like the Minolta, but at about half the price, you can have an equivalent camera, while they last! I used a DC-50 in an Indonesian rain forest for 2 years, and it held up to the physical and climate abuse with no problems. Physically, it is much more rugged than the current delicate Kodaks.

With the price savings, you can buy some telephoto, wide angle, more memory cards and other accessories. The DC-120 is bridled with an ancient serial interface, so a memory card reader is a nice accessory. Oh, another DC-120 advantage not available on the newer Kodaks... it has an uncompressed file mode. That alone, makes your files as good as you can get from the newer ones, which only allow compressed files.

Good luck, I hope you haven't already jumped into your purchase. The DC-120 will comfortably take you a few years down the road, when we can upgrade our cameras 2 or 3 generations newer. And, for the next 2 two years, you can brag about what a smart choice you made.

-- William McAuley (wrmcauley@aol.com), April 18, 1999.