Has anyone had hands on experience with this this camera? Opinions would be appreciated.
#1. "RE: Kodak DCR Pro SLR\n" | In response to Reply # 0pmirror Registered since 24th Nov 2002Sun 02-May-04 08:34 AM
You can read my post I've played with Kodak SLR/n, in this forum. It's a good camera, especially for the one who needs FF, big resolution, and shooting in fair amount of lights. But the hig ISO is not bad at all too. It's better than the K14n. I just wait for D2x for few months. If not I think I go for it. The minus side is only its based on n80body and the AF is not the CAM2000.
No matter how good D2x, if its not FF and more than 11MP, I think lots of studio photographers will have a hard time to choose between D2X and Kodak Pro SLR/n.
it's near Bali, if you don't know where it is
#3. "RE: Kodak DCR Pro SLR\n" | In response to Reply # 0
Studio shot with my new Kodak:
#4. "RE: Kodak DCR Pro SLR\n" | In response to Reply # 3wngmstr870 Registered since 07th Mar 2003Tue 07-Sep-04 06:25 PM
Can you guys answer a few questons for me on the Kodak SLR/N?
I have been to their website, checked multiple searches on the web, been to all the normal review sites and just cant find the answers I am looking for. I assume what the answers are, but dont know for sure.
My questions are:
1) What AF module is in the Kodak Pro SLR/N? My assumption is the CAM900 -
2) What metering system is used - is it the 10 segement system or is it the 1005 system like the F5? My assumption is the 10 segement -
Thanks in advance.
#5. "RE: Kodak DCR Pro SLR\n" | In response to Reply # 4jtf1 Registered since 08th Sep 2004Thu 09-Sep-04 12:29 AM
>My questions are:
> 1) What AF module is in the Kodak Pro SLR/N? My
>assumption is the CAM900 -
> 2) What metering system is used - is it the 10 segement
>system or is it the 1005 system like the F5? My assumption
>is the 10 segement -
>Thanks in advance.
Your assumptions are correct. I beleive Kodak has responded on another forum that the core body is a Nikon N80 except for the shutter. The original shutter wouldn't allow the full frame sensor to fit. So a custom shutter was substituted.
I have the SLR/n and enjoy it.
#6. "RE: Kodak DCR Pro SLR\n" | In response to Reply # 5Sat 04-Dec-04 02:33 PM
A little on the NEWer Kodak Pro/n
So far so good.
My ideal camera would be a 22MP F5, but it’s not going to happen. At least not for 5+ years. The 14MP is touching on medium format and it shows when looking at the clarity and detail of the photos produced. The Kodak is not as fast with the older CAM but is very usable. The full frame is a plus and the 14MP is right between the D2X and the Mark 2. With a little user adjustment, the flash and focus can be anticipated and correct. It’s not a Nikon and it’s not a Canon. It is its own breed of camera even if it looks like both of its competitors.
The focus is not as fast as the F100. It’s not terrible. Once you know how the camera behaves, you can anticipate it. It’s not that it isn’t a Nikon, it’s just different. I’ve only used the F100 and the manual models so I can not speak for the N90 and below to the Kodak.
The Kodak can use TTL, but has issues with either extremes of black and whites. I shoot white birds pretty often in a controlled environment. Using a SB-28 (I have to try the SB-80 next week) it blows the whites out. Trusting the TTL for exposure, my white birds were washed out. Close ups that covered 80% of the frame was near featureless. When in manual and aperture priority mode, all washed out. I needed to seriously stop down.
The SB-29 TTL does not work at all. I did find using the SB-29 at the lowest setting, Nikon 105, F22, worked pretty well. I could Photoshop it down a stop and the exposure was near perfect.
I didn’t notice the horrible noise that is reported when changing from ISO160 to ISO800. You have noise, but anything under 400 is very tolerable. 800 is not that bad.
The full frame is something that I like. Mainly because I know what to expect when slapping a lens on. I don’t like the DX line at all. When I buy a 14mm I want a 14mm. If I want to reach out with my 300mm I’ll buy a 1.7 tele-extender. If I want to move in closer even more after a shot, I can still crop reasonably with 14MP Raw. The BS about the FF being so expensive is just that; BS. When every other vendor is offering a FF camera there is no excuse not to follow.
If I did not own any equipment at all I would have to go with Canon over both Nikon and Kodak. Because I do own near $10,000 in Nikon gear I was seriously looking at the D2X or just jumping ship. I probably would have gone with the D2X anyway, but the Kodak secured my stay.
Why did I choose the Kodak? It actually chose my wife. I’ll explain. The New York show at Jacob Javitts center. The Canon area was a mob scene. This should be a hint of things to come. A hint to Nikon to stop serving the appetizer after dinner has already been eaten. I was able to handle a few of the high end models and was impressed with them. Impressed enough that I was considering jumping the Nikon line entirely and taking the loss for my existing equipment. I went over to look at the D2X again because it seemed as if Nikons fate was sealed. It was good, but not as good as the Canon line. I left the Nikon area and a Kodak rep walked up to my wife and told her “she won”. I thought it was a 3.1MP camera or something until we found out it was the new pro SLR. She reminds me constantly that it’s her camera and I better be nice to her. This is after I bought her a Nikon N80 3 days before. Now I have to scout my house to find all my lenses. Like a ferret, she keeps running off with them. Still, it’s a hobby that keeps us both out of trouble.
Summary: All cameras have their quirks and problems. Above is a list of the bad while omitting the majority of good. If you are invested in Nikon seriously consider the Kodak Pro. It’s different, but the quality is there. A cameras most important part is film. Without film, the camera is nothing. You can have all the features in the world and lab grown diamonds for lens glass. Without film you have a brick. In this case it’s the sensor; a 14MP FF sensor. Kodak is #2 in the small format market right now. #3, Nikons D2X is a 12MP DX sensor. I will not get into the technical and physics part of this but Nikon dropped the ball again by not using a full frame sensor. Realistically, no one will notice the 12-14MP difference just as no one will notice the 14-16MP difference. 14MP sits comfortably in between them both. Canon has the #1 camera in my eye, but should be reserved for people that can comfortably afford it or have a need for it. Nikon keeps making a blunder followed by another blunder. This makes Kodak an option that should be considered before buying any 8+MP digital camera.
#7. "RE: Kodak DCR Pro SLR\n" | In response to Reply # 6BJNicholls Charter MemberMon 06-Dec-04 06:00 PM
You do get 14mm in DX format, it's just a smaller format than what you're used to. It's a lot easier to start thinking in terms of a new format when you've used it for a while, and the "equivalent" doesn't require any mental conversion except in discussions with other folks who've only used 35mm. Just as medium format users get used to the wider angle of view for a given focal length.
I've followed the Kodak 14n and SLR/n but although the performance has improved substantially via a better new sensor and many software and firmware enhancements, I'm still not interested at the current price. It's a camera I wouldn't use over ISO 400 and it has quite limited low light and night shooting abilities. The lack of an antialiasing filter means you'll see "christmas light" artifacts that you can't process away without shifting colors and affecting image quality. If I did mostly studio work the high resolution would be more appealing.
Just as the SLC/c got a $1000 instant rebate when Canon introduced its latest high res DSLRs, I'd expect a similar rebate or permanent price drop when the D2X starts shipping.
#8. "RE: Kodak DCR Pro SLR\n" | In response to Reply # 7Mon 06-Dec-04 07:35 PM
What are the Christmas light artifacts? How can I reproduce them or are they so rampant that it will only be a matter of time?
The price drop for the Canon could be because of the bad blood between Kodak and Canon. The Canon reps were more than happy to fill me in on what Kodak did and how they felt. When the D2X comes out, you’re probably right, they will offer the rebate.
I understand the concept of 14mm being a 14mm across the board. Go ahead a few years when Nikon finally produces a FF. Now what? The DX series will be sitting along side my 110 camera (the old little tiny point and clicks). I expect my lenses to last 10+ years.
Didn’t Canon also do something stupid a while back with changing bayonet mounts?
#9. "RE: Kodak DCR Pro SLR\n" | In response to Reply # 8BJNicholls Charter MemberTue 07-Dec-04 05:02 AM
I think DX will be a viable format for a long time. Nikon isn't in any hurry to with 24x36 sensors and the price differential is perpetual. Larger sensors will grace pro cameras, but I see DX continuing to be viable a Nikon's entry-level line and for folks who do a lot of tele shooting (although the D2X sensor crop trick would also work for them).
The Christmas light artifacts are easy to find. The most graphic case I can show you is the Kodak site's sample of the church interior. The embroidered edge of the altar cloth looks like it's illuminated from behind by colored lights, but it's an artifact that's common in fine, high contrast details (text on signs often shows these spurious color artifacts).
You can run the image through Photoshop CS raw and crank up the color noise reduction to minimize the "lights", but this changes the color and even the shadow tonality of the images. CS is a nice option to Photo Desk since there's still too much painterly noise reduction from the Kodak converter for some of us.
Whatever Canon's now long-ago mount change meant for Canon system owners, they're at it again with the new "digital" lenses that require shortened mirror bodies and that only work with the 300D and 20D. Nikon's DX lenses work on all its current bodies. My 12-24mm will even deliver 16mm (with no filter installed) to 24mm on full frame film bodies and the 14n.
I don't worry about the DX lenses losing resale value nearly as quickly as the bodies I own now. And it's really the only lens I need in addition to my regular Nikkors to make DX a viable format from superwide to long tele.
The SLR/n is capable of exceptional image quality if you work within its limitations. I wouldn't consider its predecessor but I could envision getting into the SLR/n at the right price (much lower than the current price).
#11. "RE: Kodak DCR Pro SLR\n" | In response to Reply # 9Wed 15-Dec-04 02:26 AM
I finally got to see the Christmas lights. Really really weird. It could be very annoying to work around.
Back to DX vs. normal. Are you personally going to invest in DX or are you going to buy the standard lens sets that can be used on film and digital? I would think that a pure digital user would be the market that Nikon would have to chase with the DX line.
I was at a large NYC retailer also known for cameras. The experienced camera sales rep was showing me all the new DX lenses for my F100… It took about 10 min. to get him to agree they are NOT for film cameras. Unfortunately, this guy is there everyday and helps people buy gear. The 10mm DX did kick ass.