Kodak AZ526 16MP Bridge Camera - Black. £107.99 reserve at Argos. Reduced from £199.99
Expired

Kodak AZ526 16MP Bridge Camera - Black. £107.99 reserve at Argos. Reduced from £199.99

£107.99Argos Deals
36
Found 11th Mar 2015
Kodak AZ526 16MP Bridge Camera - Black.
Memories are made for the taking with this stunning Kodak PIXPRO AZ526 sharp shooter. The pinnacle of the Kodak Astro Zoom collection, this camera boasts a powerful 52x optical zoom with 9 fps for high quality continuous shooting. Built-in Wi-Fi and an electronic view finder offer more options in capturing your priceless moments too.
Model number: AZ526
Product specification:
16 megapixels.
52x optical zoom.
4x digital zoom.
3in screen with LCD technology.
24mm wide angle lens.
Optical image stabilisation.
Up to 9 frames per second.
Shutter speed of 1/2000 to 30 sec.
Features:
Wi-Fi.
View finder.
Minimum ISO rating 80 and maximum ISO rating 3200.
Built-in flash.
1080p HD recording.
Video capture.
PictBridge compatible.
Memory card compatibility:
SD and SDHC memory card formats.
General information:
Colour: black.
Includes strap and USB cable.
Batteries required: 1 x Li-Ion (included).
Size H9, W12, D10cm.
Weight 530g.
EAN: 0819900011173
Additional Information

36 Comments

Shame about the image quality. Voted cold.

Banned

no.

LandOfConfusion

Shame about the image quality. Voted cold.



Oh, I don't know... Reviews are pretty good. Previously on sale at £119.99. 3% TCB for the next few days.

Manual downloadable HERE.


Edited by: "LongPockets" 11th Mar 2015

LongPockets

Oh, I don't know... Reviews are pretty good. Previously on sale at … Oh, I don't know... Reviews are pretty good. Previously on sale at £119.99. 3% TCB for the next few days.Manual downloadable HERE.


he has an appropriate name, wondering what the max zoom on his camera is or how the evf is doing? oh and how much change he got from 108quid...

few samples here
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3804554
looks pretty good tbh

LongPockets

Oh, I don't know... Reviews are pretty good.



Cameras are highly subjective equipment and as such I never trust user reviews, and especially from people who have just bought one! (see brilly's link below.) (_;)

brilly

he has an appropriate name, wondering what the max zoom on his camera is … he has an appropriate name, wondering what the max zoom on his camera is or how the evf is doing? oh and how much change he got from 108quid...few samples herehttp://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3804554looks pretty good tbh



Not you again. Haven't you had enough winding people up? And I see you're still sticking doggedly to qualitative (as opposed to objective) reviews. And poor ones at that.

Here's an example of what I'm looking for. I have no idea who these people are but they're all I could find in the brief search I just did; it looks like none of the more reputable camera review sites have even bothered:
http://vsbee.com/cameras/reviews/Kodak_AZ526-camera-review

Over allWith a bit below average sensor, unpleasant lens, over average … Over allWith a bit below average sensor, unpleasant lens, over average controls, below average video, horrible ergonomics, Kodak AZ526 has an a bit below average over all performance.



That said, I think it's OK for the money but if you're stretching to buy this then you probably shouldn't be buying a luxury good anyway.

LandOfConfusion

That said, I think it's OK for the money but if you're stretching to buy … That said, I think it's OK for the money but if you're stretching to buy this then you probably shouldn't be buying a luxury good anyway.



You seem to be saying that people who can't afford a Nikon shouldn't own a camera at all.

LongPockets

You seem to be saying that people who can't afford a Nikon shouldn't own … You seem to be saying that people who can't afford a Nikon shouldn't own a camera at all.



Not all all. What I'm saying is that when most people buy something better than a camera phone they usually do so because they want something better than a camera phone. Now the headline feature on this is it's zoom, but what the marketing doesn't say is that to achieve that kind of zoom range on a relatively small & cheap camera you have to pay for it in other areas, most notably image quality.

I have a superzoom camera which I use for wildlife and when I brought it I knew I was sacrificing some range for a better body, flip-out screen, better controls, better EVF but most importantly better image quality. And it's that last point which is probably the most important. After all what's the point to taking photo's if you can't enjoy them?

Edited by: "LandOfConfusion" 11th Mar 2015

LongPockets

Oh, I don't know... Reviews are pretty good.

brilly

he has an appropriate name, wondering what the max zoom on his camera is … he has an appropriate name, wondering what the max zoom on his camera is or how the evf is doing? oh and how much change he got from 108quid...few samples herehttp://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3804554looks pretty good tbh

http://vsbee.com/cameras/reviews/Kodak_AZ526-camera-review

Over allWith a bit below average sensor, unpleasant lens, over average … Over allWith a bit below average sensor, unpleasant lens, over average controls, below average video, horrible ergonomics, Kodak AZ526 has an a bit below average over all performance.


you are slating my 'review'?
not my review - an example of what this camera can achieve as i stated nothing more
show me a camera for 108quid that can do better

lets see your review? oh wait you dont have this camera either so cant even give examples of what can be done.
you think that vsbee link is a review? they clearly looked at the spec sheet and ticked boxes without even holding the camera - worse than useless!

you may notice that guy has a hs50 as well and he says this camera is better and this is half the price

i think i'll go with some guy that has taken a few pics with the camera rather than a guy that kneekerks and writes the camera off without a clue then presents some nonreview as proof!

brilly

you are slating my 'review'? not my review - an example of what this … you are slating my 'review'? not my review - an example of what this camera can achieve as i stated nothing more



I didn't claim it was a review that you personally conducted, merely a review that you linked to.

brilly

lets see your review? oh wait you dont have this camera either so cant … lets see your review? oh wait you dont have this camera either so cant even give examples of what can be done.



http://i.imgur.com/erimr1n.png

Picture on the left is an HS50EXR. Picture on the right uses (I assume) the same sensor as the AZ526. Other than resizing and conversion to lossless PNG nothing has been changed and both were shot at ISO800.

brilly

you think that vsbee link is a review? they clearly looked at the spec … you think that vsbee link is a review? they clearly looked at the spec sheet and ticked boxes without even holding the camera - worse than useless!



If that were true it would make it rather difficult for them to describe the ergonomics as such:

http://vsbee.com/cameras/reviews/Kodak_AZ526-camera-review

Over all Kodak AZ526 has a horrible Ergonomics.



brilly

you may notice that guy has a hs50 as well and he says this camera is … you may notice that guy has a hs50 as well and he says this camera is better and this is half the price



I like the way you cite totally objective and impartial reviews like this. After all having brought it he is unlikely to be experiencing any buyer's remorse.

brilly

i think i'll go with some guy that has taken a few pics with the camera … i think i'll go with some guy that has taken a few pics with the camera rather than a guy that kneekerks and writes the camera off without a clue then presents some nonreview as proof!



You're welcome to your opinion.

Edited by: "LandOfConfusion" 11th Mar 2015

brilly

you are slating my 'review'? not my review - an example of what this … you are slating my 'review'? not my review - an example of what this camera can achieve as i stated nothing more

brilly

lets see your review? oh wait you dont have this camera either so cant … lets see your review? oh wait you dont have this camera either so cant even give examples of what can be done.

brilly

you think that vsbee link is a review? they clearly looked at the spec … you think that vsbee link is a review? they clearly looked at the spec sheet and ticked boxes without even holding the camera - worse than useless!

http://vsbee.com/cameras/reviews/Kodak_AZ526-camera-review

Over all Kodak AZ526 has a horrible Ergonomics.

brilly

you may notice that guy has a hs50 as well and he says this camera is … you may notice that guy has a hs50 as well and he says this camera is better and this is half the price

brilly

i think i'll go with some guy that has taken a few pics with the camera … i think i'll go with some guy that has taken a few pics with the camera rather than a guy that kneekerks and writes the camera off without a clue then presents some nonreview as proof!


i never said it was a review i linked to - just a guy and some examples

i am not citing anything - i linked to somewhere that had examples of shots taken
what i said was 'FEW SAMPLES HERE'
its not my fault you cant read
as for buyers remorse, he said he bought another camera as well and sent it back so if this one was rubbish he'd have done the same but make more stuff up please

ergonomics - they clearly state they measured the weight to classify the ergonomics - thats it, the weight, nothing else
worse than useless

your colour chart,
1 you never gave a source
2 you are assuming same sensor (doesn't even mean the jpg processing is the same if same)
3 a block of colour means little in terms of noise
4 can you tell me the relative price of the hs50exr vs this even if the guy was wrong?

LandOfConfusion

If that were true it would make it rather difficult for them to describe … If that were true it would make it rather difficult for them to describe the ergonomics as such:



I saw the review, and the ergonomics aspect was based entirely on weight, which they could have taken from the spec sheet. I don't know why they thought the weight was horrible.


Time to post another review, well, not a full review, but a complimentary snapshot:

photography monthly


Edited by: "LongPockets" 11th Mar 2015

brilly

i never said it was a review i linked to - just a guy and some examples



I was sort of fishing for reviews as I couldn't find any and in response you provided what sounds very much like a user review.

brilly

as for buyers remorse, he said he bought another camera as well and sent … as for buyers remorse, he said he bought another camera as well and sent it back so if this one was rubbish he'd have done the same but make more stuff up please



He doesn't say he sent anything back but does admittedly hint that he returned the higher numbered model, possibly because he thought it might be faulty.

brilly

ergonomics - they clearly state they measured the weight to classify the … ergonomics - they clearly state they measured the weight to classify the ergonomics - thats it, the weight, nothing elseworse than useless



I can't see that in their review but anyway.

brilly

your colour chart, 1 you never gave a source



Test images for the AZ521.
Test images for the HS50EXR.

brilly

2 you are assuming same sensor (doesn't even mean the jpg processing is … 2 you are assuming same sensor (doesn't even mean the jpg processing is the same if same)



You're right but usually expensive parts (like the sensor) are carried across models like they were on that Canon. I would have preferred to compare the exact same model but for some strange reason no respectable site seems to have reviewed it. I wonder why. (_;)

brilly

3 a block of colour means little in terms of noise



Should've gone to Spec Savers. (_;) Colour test charts are invaluable for showing noise and JPEG artifacts and are infinitely better than comparing random test shots taken on different days.

brilly

4 can you tell me the relative price of the hs50exr vs this even if the … 4 can you tell me the relative price of the hs50exr vs this even if the guy was wrong?



I can see what you're getting at. I can buy a Chinese made Rolls Royce clone for about £10k but that doesn't mean I'm getting RR drive or build quality for that. Similarly this camera is made by JK Imaging, a Chinese company which appears to specialise in low-end, cheap camera equipment. Not really comparable to the likes of Fujifilm.

LongPockets

Time to post another review, well, not a full review, but a complimentary … Time to post another review, well, not a full review, but a complimentary snapshot:[/url]



Thanks but looks a bit like churnalism.

Quite strange though how there aren't any quality independent reviews.

LandOfConfusion

Thanks but looks a bit like churnalism.Quite strange though how there … Thanks but looks a bit like churnalism.Quite strange though how there aren't any quality independent reviews.



Still looking. I expect it is because Kodak stopped making cameras soon after these were released.

Here is a guy who actually uses one, with photos he has taken: LINK

He says in a later post:

"I bought it at a very good price in the UK, but they are now sold out, I can compare it with my previous Fuji HS50EXR and say that it is a better camera, infact I am pretty sure its about as good as a 16mp small sensor superzoom could be at this point in time.

The lens extends a remarkably short distance given the zoom and the menus are just about comprehensive enough, the Fuji had loads of shooting modes that I was very unlikely to ever use and although I have always loved cameras , I really cant be bothered with RAW, I just dont see the point, the EVF is very good, battery life is good, lens is sharp, colours and JPEG engine are excellent, build is also excellent

I read a very unfavorable review of the latest 20mp 65x Kodak, so I am not sure about that one (I regard reviews with caution), but the 526 is really very good indeed, I am delighted"

Edited by: "LongPockets" 11th Mar 2015

LandOfConfusion

Thanks but looks a bit like churnalism.Quite strange though how there … Thanks but looks a bit like churnalism.Quite strange though how there aren't any quality independent reviews.


that doesn't mean much tbh its just a lesser name, the site i regularly go to has many many cameras missing - think about how many are released.
there aren't any negative ones either - lack of reviews doesn't mean anything

from the vbee crap

Ergonomics

Here we review Kodak AZ526's Ergonomics by checking its Weight.
Weight
22%
Over all Kodak AZ526 has a horrible Ergonomics.
Ergonomics
22%
only weight - utter junk

yes the colour test charts are useful but tbh the fuji one has very high noise reduction in its jpg algoithm as indicated by the blurred and smeared text
the kodak one is noisy but its pretty sharp with it - could even be camera settings
more useful is test images with fine detail as well and/or with sharpening/noise reduction to show potential

also you have increased the size not just cropped - pointless

from that review of a lesser model

"Kodak PIXPRO AZ521 Pros
Fast continuous shooting
Full 1080p HD video recording
Good optical image stabilisation
Manual controls
HDR mode
Colourful images
Pleasant portraits
Image quality is decent

Kodak PIXPRO AZ521 Cons
No viewfinder
Some of the settings are in unusual places
Lots of noise in images at ISO 1600 and 3200"

4/5 not bad thanks for confirming its likely a good camera at well under half the review price of a lower model!

LongPockets

Still looking. I expect it is because Kodak stopped making cameras soon … Still looking. I expect it is because Kodak stopped making cameras soon after these were released.Here is a guy who actually uses one, with photos he has taken: LINKHe says in a later post:"I bought it at a very good price in the UK, but they are now sold out, I can compare it with my previous Fuji HS50EXR and say that it is a better camera, infact I am pretty sure its about as good as a 16mp small sensor superzoom could be at this point in time.The lens extends a remarkably short distance given the zoom and the menus are just about comprehensive enough, the Fuji had loads of shooting modes that I was very unlikely to ever use and although I have always loved cameras , I really cant be bothered with RAW, I just dont see the point, the EVF is very good, battery life is good, lens is sharp, colours and JPEG engine are excellent, build is also excellentI read a very unfavorable review of the latest 20mp 65x Kodak, so I am not sure about that one (I regard reviews with caution), but the 526 is really very good indeed, I am delighted"


woah back up there fella i already did that and got ranted at!

http://4.static.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/55337845/095ded8d73c1433eacc99fd978566d3a

LongPockets

Here is a guy who actually uses one, with photos he has taken: LINKHe … Here is a guy who actually uses one, with photos he has taken: LINKHe says in a later post:"I bought it at a very good price in the UK, but they are now sold out, I can compare it with my previous Fuji HS50EXR and say that it is a better camera, infact I am pretty sure its about as good as a 16mp small sensor superzoom could be at this point in time.The lens extends a remarkably short distance given the zoom and the menus are just about comprehensive enough, the Fuji had loads of shooting modes that I was very unlikely to ever use and although I have always loved cameras , I really cant be bothered with RAW, I just dont see the point, the EVF is very good, battery life is good, lens is sharp, colours and JPEG engine are excellent, build is also excellentI read a very unfavorable review of the latest 20mp 65x Kodak, so I am not sure about that one (I regard reviews with caution), but the 526 is really very good indeed, I am delighted"



Appears to be the same guy as brilly was referring to. I'm a little dubious about this review as he doesn't seem to like the available features on the HS50, which makes a significant difference as it's quite a tuneable camera. That said he seems happy with auto mode on his JK/Kodak.

brilly

there aren't any negative ones either - lack of reviews doesn't mean … there aren't any negative ones either - lack of reviews doesn't mean anything



Au contrare, In my experience a lack of reviews is ofter indicative of a dubious product.

brilly

from the vbee crapErgonomicsHere we review Kodak AZ526's Ergonomics by … from the vbee crapErgonomicsHere we review Kodak AZ526's Ergonomics by checking its Weight.



Fair enough.

brilly

yes the colour test charts are useful but tbh the fuji one has very high … yes the colour test charts are useful but tbh the fuji one has very high noise reduction in its jpg algoithm as indicated by the blurred and smeared text



The bokeh in LongPocket's picture above shows noise suppression but apparently using a different approach. Looks like hot pixels are being averaged. IMHO the pictures look better from the Fuji but that said as with almost anything to do with pictures it's highly subjective.

brilly

the kodak one is noisy but its pretty sharp with it - could even be … the kodak one is noisy but its pretty sharp with it - could even be camera settings



Quite possibly.

brilly

also you have increased the size not just cropped - pointless



No, I selected the hi-res versions and then cropped from them.

brilly

4/5 not bad thanks for confirming its likely a good camera at well under … 4/5 not bad thanks for confirming its likely a good camera at well under half the review price of a lower model!



Let's get this right, 4/5 for a low-end superzoom. The mid-range HS50EXR produces better output in the right hands (or even just in EXR mode) while Canon's SX50/SX60 both have better IS and the SX60 goes even further with a better EVF, screen and IQ. I also have some personal test shots from an SX50 taken in a dark room where the only the light is from a TV. Impressive is the word here.

But again, if you're really that tight then go for it. But for me the final result is what's important and I won't compromise on IQ unless I really have to.

sheesh that az521 was reviewed as a 250quid camera and got 4/5 ,the main complain was no viewfinder which this higher model does and at ~40% of the price
get a grip - 108quid camera taking decent pics
HOT

You'll be lucky to find one anyway. Only available to collect, and of the shops near me, only one had stock. I have mine reserved. Anyone turning their nose up just leaves more for the rest of us.

brilly

sheesh that az521 was reviewed as a 250quid camera and got 4/5 ,the main … sheesh that az521 was reviewed as a 250quid camera and got 4/5 ,the main complain was no viewfinder which this higher model does and at ~40% of the priceget a grip - 108quid camera taking decent picsHOT



Apart from their very useful colour chart I don't use ephotozine as a review source in debates because, on the level of relativity I often disagree with their conclusions. You can't compare a 4/5 P&S with a 4/5 DSLR for example.

BUT, since you want to compare these models, photographyblog gave the £469 HS50EXR 4.5/5 and the £250 Kodak PixPro AZ5214.0/5, which makes my £160 HS50 look quite good value (well, it did when I brought it).

But anyway, it's a mute point as I currently recommend Canon's SX60 HS for which photographyblog said:

photographyblog

But where the camera really scores is image quality. Considering the … But where the camera really scores is image quality. Considering the inherent limitations of its small sensor, the SX60 HS manages to produce images with impressively low noise levels at all of its ISO sensitivity settings. Colour, dynamic range and exposure metering are superb too.


Edited by: "LandOfConfusion" 11th Mar 2015

oh YOU currently recommend that camera you read off a site? rofl

brilly

oh YOU currently recommend that camera you read off a site?



Yes. And what's more (and as previously mentioned) I've actually used the previous incarnation (SX50) and this just seems to be an evolution of that. In fact it looks like when I get one I won't have to learn anything more.

brilly

rofl



I trust PGB's reviews and my experiences have matched what they've said. Why is that so strange?

brilly

oh YOU currently recommend that camera you read off a site?

brilly

rofl


rofl @ the utter pretentiousness of it

also what sort of relevance does a 350quid sx60 have in a 108quid camera thread?

brilly

rofl @ the utter pretentiousness of italso what sort of relevance does a … rofl @ the utter pretentiousness of italso what sort of relevance does a 350quid sx60 have in a 108quid camera thread?



Actually if you bother to look you can buy them for far less than the RRP but anyway, I only mentioned it as you brought up the comparison.

You are of course free to buy the JK/Kodak but I feel the Canon is better overall value because otherwise, in a few years' time your photographic memories will be from the lower quality budget cam. But hey if that's fine by you who am I to argue?

LandOfConfusion

Actually if you bother to look you can buy them for far less than the RRP … Actually if you bother to look you can buy them for far less than the RRP but anyway, I only mentioned it as you brought up the comparison.You are of course free to buy the JK/Kodak but I feel the Canon is better overall value because otherwise, in a few years' time your photographic memories will be from the lower quality budget cam. But hey if that's fine by you who am I to argue?


i never mentioned sx60
where am i getting it for 108 or even under 300?

i am not going to buy this camera - i have a camera i dont need another... that doesn't mean i cant see the utility of different ones

i am not sure who you are to argue - it doesn't seem to put you off doing it anyway

LandOfConfusion

You are of course free to buy the JK/Kodak



Whew, thanks. I forgot to check with you before I ordered.

LongPockets

Whew, thanks. I forgot to check with you before I ordered.



That comment wasn't aimed at you but you're welcome anyway.

brilly

i never mentioned sx60



I think you did:

brilly

also what sort of relevance does a 350quid sx60 have in a 108quid camera … also what sort of relevance does a 350quid sx60 have in a 108quid camera thread?



brilly

i am not going to buy this camera - i have a camera i dont need … i am not going to buy this camera - i have a camera i dont need another... that doesn't mean i cant see the utility of different ones



Of course but why buy less than the best that you can reasonably afford? Unless, of course IQ doesn't matter.

brilly

i am not sure who you are to argue - it doesn't seem to put you off doing … i am not sure who you are to argue - it doesn't seem to put you off doing it anyway



OK, goodnight!

I'd be really interested in seeing a proper magazine review; but I'm guessing the owners of the Kodak camera brand won't pay up or maybe the mags are too snobbish to touch a 'low-end' model.

The images in the thread Brilly linked to seem a lot better than the images here - dpreview.com/for…139. The thread comments heavily praise the camera, but I'd say image quality is a level or two below the likes of the HX400v, Fuji S1 or Panasonic FZ72; maybe my expectations are too high.

Certainly seems a good spec for the price.

Thanks for the update. Those additional pictures are quite interesting.

wombat6025

I'd be really interested in seeing a proper magazine review; but I'm … I'd be really interested in seeing a proper magazine review; but I'm guessing the owners of the Kodak camera brand won't pay up or maybe the mags are too snobbish to touch a 'low-end' model.



My experience of magazine review policies is limited but usually the process is they request a loan or sample (or are offered one) and make money though the advertising which accompanies the review. As for why JK Imaging didn't supply this particular model when they did supply a different model is a bit strange though.

wombat6025

The images in the thread Brilly linked to seem a lot better than the … The images in the thread Brilly linked to seem a lot better than the images here - http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3807139. The thread comments heavily praise the camera, but I'd say image quality is a level or two below the likes of the HX400v, Fuji S1 or Panasonic FZ72; maybe my expectations are too high.



I agree, the image quality isn't up there with the better supers' but then perhaps that's why they shunned the dedicated camera retailers and went with the high street chains instead?

I also agree with you in that these pictures look different from the other lot and incidentally I've also noticed one other thing: according to the EXIF data the sensitivity of neither any of these or the other pictures exceed ISO200. In fact with only a couple of exceptions they all seem to have been shot in very good light. And even then in all the pictures I looked closely at I can see unacceptable (to me) levels of noise starting to creep in, even with the ISO this low. It does makes me wonder if the photographer was intentionally trying to keep noise to a minimum.

wombat6025

Certainly seems a good spec for the price.



I remember when the top end model was announced last year. It's 65x "Astro Zoom" was the prime selling point. As for value I'm still skeptical about it being a good buy but then it I guess it depends on what your usage is going to be. For me image quality is more important than focal length but then I'm sure there will be people who just want a small telescope with a camera at the rear!

I will agree with the other posters in that thread though, for a superzoom the optics on this do appear to be quite good; very little vignetting and only minor pincushioning & distortion at wide angle.

Edited by: "LandOfConfusion" 13th Mar 2015

Deal is expired in any case.

Anyone after a bridge camera might be better off saving a few pounds between now and the Easter sales; I bought both the FZ72 and HX400v for less than £150 after cashback at Christmas and I can't see the Easter deals being any worse.

wombat6025

I'd be really interested in seeing a proper magazine review; but I'm … I'd be really interested in seeing a proper magazine review; but I'm guessing the owners of the Kodak camera brand won't pay up or maybe the mags are too snobbish to touch a 'low-end' model. The images in the thread Brilly linked to seem a lot better than the images here - http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3807139. The thread comments heavily praise the camera, but I'd say image quality is a level or two below the likes of the HX400v, Fuji S1 or Panasonic FZ72; maybe my expectations are too high.Certainly seems a good spec for the price.


tbh i think the image quality of most of those are pretty good - i take it you clicked through as the previews shown in threads are massively compressed?
those cameras may be better (good prices on those!) but still 40-50% more
totally forgot about how sites often get their cameras for reviews - previews are easy as its walk round a show and pick it up, or press photo and specs which costs nothing etc

HX400v under £150 ????

spakkker

HX400v under £150 ????



£187 at Amazon on Boxing day and New Year's day (£137 after £50 Sony cashback).
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text