I was surprised by the Nikon 12-24 lens, not doing as good as I thought it
would. What's even more surprising is the Canon SD-500 at under $350 does so
well. There is so much more detail in all the photos. But part of that is
because it isn't as wide of a lens as the other two. It's easier to make a
37mm lens than a 18mm (Nikon) or 23mm (Kodak).

But in every photo, the Kodak lens at 23mm isn't very good. The Nikon easily
surpasses the Kodak, but it should as a $700 camera and a $1000 lens is
quite a bit more than the $399 Kodak.

The bottom line is this: Is the Kodak useful for REALTORS? I am hesitant to
say yes due to the detail / sharpness / contrast issue. It does have an
advantage in that it does have a 23mm lens in a very compact package, and
it's fairly inexpensive. The lack of detail or sharpness is something that
is difficult to overcome. I tried sharpening a couple of the photos that
Keith took, and the contrast then became an issue. By using an "unsharp mask
filter", the edges of branches became so contrasty, while the details didn't
sharpen up as much as I would have liked.