— Digital Cameras
JK Imaging launches first of the new Kodak cameras: the PIXPRO AZ361
The newly-launched Kodak PIXPRO Astro Zoom AZ361 bridge camera
Early last year, the Eastman Kodak Company announced the phase out and cessation of all its "dedicated capture devices." Citing the rise in quality of smartphone cameras, Kodak-branded cameras looked set to be consigned to the history books ... until a Los Angeles company called JK Imaging signed a brand licensing deal in January 2013 that would see the globally-recognized Kodak name emblazoned on a new wave of digital imaging devices. The first of the new PIXPRO line to emerge is the Astro Zoom AZ361 bridge camera.
The AZ361 looks to be the first of three long zooms from JK Imaging under the PIXPRO name, with two compacts and a waterproof active cam also currently shown as "Coming Soon" on the company's Kodak brand website.
The camera features a 16-megapixel (1/2.3-inch) CCD Sensor, up to ISO3200 sensitivity, a 9-point autofocus system, and an aspheric HD 36x wide-angle optical zoom lens made up of 16 elements in 14 groups. The focal length runs from 24mm wide-angle to 864mm telephoto.
The Astro Zoom benefits from optical image stabilization to help compensate for camera shake, a DSLR-like PASM mode dial, and a host of included creativity options. It's powered by a 3.7 V/1100 mAh Li-ion battery (200 stills per charge), is capable of recording 720p HD video at 30 fps with monaural audio, and includes HDMI and AV/USB connectivity. There's a 3-inch 460,000-dot LCD display panel to the rear, and an integrated pop-up flash module to the top.
The all-new Kodak PIXPRO Astro Zoom AZ361 bridge camera is available now in silver, white, blue or red at a suggested retail of US$229.
Product page: AZ361
About the Author
While Paul is loath to reveal his age, he will admit to cutting his IT teeth on a TRS-80 (although he won't say which version). An obsessive fascination with computer technology blossomed from hobby into career before the desire for sunnier climes saw him wave a fond farewell to his native Blighty in favor of Bordeaux, France. He's now a dedicated newshound pursuing the latest bleeding edge tech for Gizmag.
All articles by Paul Ridden
I'm glad! The Kodak name has too much history to simply fade away into the past. And the price is not bad either!
They should start cheap and improve value over time to retain the brand value. Nevertheless, I will always buy something with the name Kodak. It is just too damn precious!
I hopes its decent quality for the price, it would be nice to see the Kodak name on some decent products and not just get slapped on low quality items like other classic names, such as Vivitar, Rollei and Bell+Howell. Strange its not available in black, what seems to be everyone's favorite 'color' for cameras.
What the "dedicated capture device" needs is a built-in internet connection. Smartphone cameras have up to 8 mp image resolution already, thus high-quality images can instantly be transmitted to the world- whether to a kid's Facebook page or a journalist's editor's computer. Lacking that ability is what will be the dedicated camera's demise.
I own two of those Easyshare docking Kodak cameras. The one purchased quite a while ago is the DX7630, 6.1 megapixels. I loved this one because it was easy to use and felt like a camera without fearing it might slip out of my right hand (and easy-to-use programming and long battery life as well). But the proprietary battery they had was this odd stepped two-"AA" arrangement. I never used the dock and downloaded directly from camera to computer with cable. Friendly Kodak photo program as well. I still use it.
Then a NY camera company had an under $200 Kodak Z981 for sale. I couldn't pass it up. It is as good as anything out there for 4 times the cost. Excellent German optics and a great Kodak sensor at 14 megapixels. Great battery life. I think I did about 200 images on my first Duracells. It has a 3-inch screen, feels good in the hands, and uses an easy-to-use and set menu (speed or F-stop prefs). Easily get 30 by 40 clear poster prints. Good flash.
Great closeups as well. I got close enough to this big intoxicated bumble bee on my butterfly-bush to see my reflection in its compound eye.
I still mix the use of both of those cameras and think it is a shame that Kodak "butted" out of the production of these very good, under-appreciated cameras, especially since they had pretty much had pretty much invented the image sensor technology. Well, hopefully, they will get back into it when the get fully out of bankruptcy and on their "feet" again.
I have a small, cheap collection of Kodak cameras and even the original little square bakelite Brownie with flash (and original box from that era) that my parents bought for me. I think it was a well spent $10 or so. I also obtained my buddy's TTL 35mm Kodak. Nice solid metal camera.
My first good job netted me a real car and then a camera. I still prefer the sharp images my Nikons gave me with superior optics on Kodachrome and Tri-X (and I hope to "call them up" this spring and summer for a little get-together with me). But I promised to have my smaller Kodak digital with me more often to catch those great urban design images that I often see.
Well here's to Kodak and all the memories the captured for everybody!!
IMHO mobile phone cameras can never replace the dedicated cameras such as one described above. For true autofocus , macro and optical zoom the lens elements have to be moved which is simply not feasible in mobile phones. My 10 year old 2 mega pixel 8x optical zoom capable of macro down to the front element of the lens, Casio camera gives far better results than almost all 8 mega pixel phone cameras.
Over 160,000 people receive our email newsletter
See the stories that matter in your inbox every morning