Kodak DC220 Test Images
|
In our normal fashion, we're posting the test images for the DC220 as soon as they are available. We'll post the full review as soon as possible, although travel plans mean that probably won't be until the end of this month (June). (We hope to have these images patched into the Comparometer(tm) by Monday, 6/15/98, so you can readily compare with other cameras.) NOTE: Our test sample of the 220 was an early pre-production "beta" unit. We believe these images will generally be representative of production devices, but some aspects (particularly the image compression settings) may be improved upon in the final, shipping units. Several readers have requested that we include more examples of cameras operating in their lower-resolution modes, and we have responded in this set of test images by exercising more of the permutations and combinations of image size and compression level in key test scenes. This test also marks the addition of two new images, again in response to reader requests. First, we've added a close-up to the outdoor portrait shot, responding to a request for something that would better show portrait performance. (We don't have the resources or time to set up a true studio portrait system, but this should at least give some idea of attainable detail.) Second, we've added a "live" version of the house shot, to test far-field lens performance. This goes against our philosophy a bit, in that the picture is obviously going to change drastically over time, with the weather, seasons, and growth of the landscaping. Some elements will nonetheless stay the same, and we believe the shot will give at least a reasonable indication of optical performance at infinity. Overview |
|
 |
Outdoor portrait: (276k) The DC220 continues Kodak's tradition of excellent
color in digital cameras. Colors in the flowers are rich and saturated,
yet skin tones are well-balanced. Overall color cast almost perfectly
matches the original scene. Some noise/compression problems evident in the
shadows on the face. We suspect these may be the result of our test unit
being a very early "beta" sample. Like it's big brother the DC260, the
DC220 has the very convenient ability to rotate "portrait"-format shots
inside the camera, eliminating an extra step on the computer later - a
nice touch. |
| ||||||||||||
|
 |
Closer portrait: (247k) This is one of the new test shots we mentioned
above. Excellent skin tone and tonal range, with no color cast. Image
compression appears to slightly "flatten" details in areas with subtle
contrast, leaving hair indistinct. (Actually though, the resulting
softness is flattering in overlooking skin blemishes, etc.) |
||||||||||||||
|
 |
Indoor portrait,
flash: (394k) Nice balance between flash and
ambient light, good color, good detail. We liked the DC220's flash better
than that of the DC210. The 220's is much more subtle, blending better
with available light. This shot was taken with the camera's white balance
set to "daylight." The DC220 seems to allow some of the same flexibility
with the flash that we found in the higher-end DC260, although we didn't
shoot as extensively with it, or post multiple flash images here. The
balance between flash and ambient light does adjust nicely via the EV
compensation (which affects the ambient light, but leaves the flash
alone). Also, the white balance will affect the scene color as you would
expect it to. We found useful variations between setting the white balance
to "auto" or "daylight". "Daylight" better matched the color of the flash,
while "auto" left a bit cooler cast overall. "Incandescent" went too far,
leaving a strong bluish cast wherever the flash illuminated. This ability
to subtly affect the balance between flash and ambient lighting is a
welcome feature. |
||||||||||||||
|
|
Indoor portrait, no
flash: (399k) This indoor shot is another
area where we noticed significant improvements over the earlier DC210: The
camera handled the low light level much better, able to produce a bright,
reasonably color-balanced image with a much lower noise level in the final
file. White balance for this shot was set to "incandescent", and the
exposure adjusted upward by 1 EV from the default determined by the
autoexposure program. |
||||||||||||||
|
 |
House shot: (534k) Typically excellent color on this shot (among the
best this image), good detail. As noted above, we expected the lens of the
DC220 to be the same as that in the DC210, but this shot shows there's
been some improvements. The DC220 looks significantly sharper in the
bricks and fine foliage than did the DC210, although the 220 appears to
lose a bit more to image compression in areas of subtle contrast. While
not dramatic, we feel the overall effect is a slight increase in quality
with the 220. We shot this image at the largest image size of the camera,
in all compression modes, so you can see how the different compression
settings affect final image quality. The entries in the matrix below refer
to image size/compression level.
|
||||||||||||||
|
 |
Far-Field shot: (415k) This is the second of the new shots we mentioned
above. It is shot at infinity to test far-field lens performance.
NOTE that this image cannot be directly compared to the
other "house" shot, which is a poster, shot in the studio. The
rendering of detail in the poster will be very different than in this
shot, and color values (and even the presence or absence of leaves on the
trees!) will vary in this subject as the seasons progress. In general
though, you can evaluate detail in the bricks, shingles, and window
detail, and in the tree branches against the sky. Compression artifacts
are most likely to show in the trim along the edge of the roof, in the
bricks, or in the relatively "flat" areas in the windows. The DC220
produced its typical excellent color in this shot, but its fixed-focus
lens appears to perform better up close than far away. While we can't
directly compare this image to the poster shot taken in the lab, detail in
the bricks, roof, and window details appear softer in this shot taken at
infinity (well, maybe about 100 feet) than in the poster version
above. |
||||||||||||||
|
 |
"Musicians" poster: (394k) We did the full matrix (six combinations) of image size/compression settings for this shot, letting you see how the camera performed across its full range of settings. Good color and tonal range, with a (very) slightly cool overall cast. Again, relative to the DC210, sharpness is improved, but some detail is lost to compression in areas of subtle tonal gradation:
|
||||||||||||||
 |
Macro shot: (268k) The DC220's fixed 8" (20cm) macro distance produces
a moderate macro close-up, with a viewing area of 4.1 x 5.5 inches (10.5 x
14 cm). This shot taken under studio lighting, but flash works well up
close, too. |
||||||||||||||
 |
"Davebox" test target: (276k) Excellent color, excellent tonal range. Color saturation is excellent in the strong primaries of the MacBeth chart, but the delicate pastels of row "B" of the Q60 target are maintained. Highlight detail is excellent, shadow detail good to very good. (The '220 discriminated between steps 17 and 18 of the large gray scale, but noise and compression artifacts were very noticeable that far down the tone curve.) Highlight detail in the layered gauze was preserved very well. In this shot, we didn't go to the extreme of providing every combination of image size and compression, but did include images captured with each of the three different compression levels, so you could assess how the compression affects color rendition.
|
||||||||||||||
 |
"WG-18" resolution target: (268k) Overall, the lens is ever so slightly sharper at the wide-angle end of its range than at the telephoto. Both settings result in a very good ~700 line pairs per picture height both horizontally and vertically. Virtually NO color artifacts are visible. Geometric distortion is also practically non-existent across the full focal-length range, with just the slightest "bobble"in the lower left-hand corner of the wide-angle shot. (Many cameras we've tested show some geometric distortion at the wide-angle end of their zooms.) Herewith the size/compression matrices: Telephoto
Wide-Angle
We also shot the resolution target with the "Digital Zoom" enabled at
both Large (189k) and
Small (105k) image
sizes. |
||||||||||||||
 |
Viewfinder accuracy/flash uniformity target:
Viewfinder accuracy and flash uniformity on the DC220 were both excellent.
The optical viewfinder follows common practice, showing an area about 11%
smaller vertically and horizontally than that captured by the CCD. The
area actually captured was also shifted down very slightly on our test
unit. Where Kodak really shines though, is in the accuracy of their LCD
viewfinders. On most digital cameras, the LCD is somewhat more accurate
than the optical viewfinder, but they generally still crop the image area
somewhat. In the 220 though, we found we could rely
absolutely on the LCD as an accurate indication of what
would be captured by the CCD. We include here shots taken with both
telephoto and wide-angle lens settings, using both the optical and LCD
viewfinders. Herewith: wide-angle/optical
(101k), wide-angle/LCD
(101k), telephoto/optical (102k),
telephoto/LCD (99k),
and Digital Zoom/LCD (image coming) (0k). |
Follow Imaging Resource: