Our Score


User Score

Review Price free/subscription

As is so often the case with Kodak cameras, it is the Z1012’s overall shooting performance that really lets it down. Although the autofocus system is nice and quick, and tracks moving subjects reliably, the shot-to-shot times are simply terrible. In single-shot mode and maximum image quality, it starts off looking promising, shooting three frames in just under five seconds, but then if you try to take a fourth shot all you get is an annoying “Processing…” screen, which lasts for nearly ten seconds. Continuous shooting is equally disappointing, since all it offers is a basic three-shot burst mode, or a “last three” capture. When similarly-priced and similarly-specified cameras can typically manage at least a two-second shot cycle, one has to wonder what’s taking the Kodak so long.

All that processing time unfortunately doesn’t translate into superior picture quality. Exposure metering is inconsistent, under or over-exposing by as much as three stops seemingly at random. This really doesn’t help the camera’s limited dynamic range, which produces burned-out highlights. This in turn affects colour reproduction, with very saturated colours, especially red and yellows, showing almost no detail.

Image noise is also a major issue. There is some colour mottling even at 64 ISO, and the effects of aggressive noise reduction are visible at 200 ISO. At 400 ISO and beyond fine detail is progressively smeared out by the NR, and the 3200 ISO shots are among the worst I’ve seen, looking like they were taken on a low-grade webcam. I didn’t even bother with the 3MP-only 6400 ISO setting.

To add to the Z1012’s woes, the normally excellent Schneider-Kreuznach lens also has some problems, with significant and uneven barrel distortion, and also quite severe chromatic aberration toward the corners of the frame.


Although only a year old, the Kodak EasyShare Z1012 IS has not aged well, and looks very weak by comparison to rival models, especially more recent ones. One can forgive the utilitarian design and slightly limited range of features, but the extremely slow performance and shoddy image quality are damning faults. It is also quite expensive for its specification. There are much better cameras for not much more money.

Previous page
Next page

Andy Vandervell

August 29, 2008, 6:46 pm

S8000fd available for under &#163150. Enough said really.


August 30, 2008, 2:15 am

Cliff, you wrote: "This means it can also use a non-rechargeable CRV3, or two AA batteries, which could come in handy if you forget to take your battery charger on holiday."

It is partially true, as all Kodak cameras that accept AA cells work ONLY on lithium batteries. They CANNOT be powered by AA alkaline batteries or Ni-MH rechargeables You can either use expensive lithium CRV3 batteries; KODAK Li-Ion Rechargeable KLIC-8000 (you will have to buy a charger for it) or AA lithium batteries, which are more expensive than alkalines. That is very limiting.

Or you can make yourself a battery if you are into DIY:


September 15, 2008, 9:40 pm

Somebody is blind and I'm sure it aint me! Looking at the recent 10star review of the Pana FZ28 I see washed out colours, dull green on the sports car and iffy red on the jag! Looking at the cathedral pic I see no colur whatsoever in stained glass windows, the kodak however has atleast pulled some colour from somewhere, overall the Kodak seems a million miles ahead of the Pana, including noise/colour/lightness etc, go look again, I dont own either!


August 29, 2009, 6:34 am

S_p_i_d_e_r , hate to disagree , But I`ve had 2 different Kodak Z`s , and plain ol` AA`s , Alkaline and Nimh will all work . They just don`t last as long as Kodaks expensive Klic 8000 rechargeable Lithiums . The CRV 3 Lithium (non-rechargeable) only costs about $10.00...and lasts longer than any other I`ve tried . Saying nothing will work but the Lithium seems to be Kodaks way of self promoting their battery line .

comments powered by Disqus