Kodak 14MP DSLR

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Alfred Molon" <alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cd77ec740d9831f98aad6@news.supernews.com...
> While looking for a (not to expensive) camera with as many MP as
> possible I ran into the Kodak unit. 14MP for approx. 4000 Euro. I could
> pay that money, but there are a couple of questions/issues:
>
> 1. How much will I need to spend for lenses, to cover a focal length
> between 28 and 300 mm (or 28 and 140mm) ? Since the MP count is high,
> the lenses will obviously have to be very good.
The camera is available for both Canon and Nikon mounts. You can find out
yourself what these lenses cost and how many you need.
>
> 2. Was not impressed by the painfully slow 1.3MB/s card write speed.
> Given that I would only shoot RAW, this is very slow. Not clear why
> Kodak would put such a slow card interface into such an expensive
> camera.
It is obsolecent.
Jim

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <j6ydnSzPyvAP-vDfRVnyrA@pipex.net>, Hannah says...
>
> The Kodak has a lot of MP but is lacking in good thorough quality. It's
> really not in the same class - or price bracket of course - as the almost
> perfect 16.6MP Canon 1DSMk2, which is the only real option for high MP
> counts other than digital backs on MF cameras.

How much is the Canon 1DSMk2 ?
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 21:37:56 GMT, Jim wrote:

>> 1. How much will I need to spend for lenses, to cover a focal length
>> between 28 and 300 mm (or 28 and 140mm) ? Since the MP count is high,
>> the lenses will obviously have to be very good.
>
> The camera is available for both Canon and Nikon mounts. You can find out
> yourself what these lenses cost and how many you need.

It's actually two different cameras. Nikon is responsible for the
version that uses Nikon lenses, but there was a glitch with the
other version. Canon evidently backed out of their agreement, and
so Kodak got Sigma to manufacture the version using Canon lenses.
The differences between the two cameras were covered in a
comparative review in a recent magazine article, but I can't recall
the name of the magazine. It might still be available on newstands.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Alfred Molon <alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:
>While looking for a (not to expensive) camera with as many MP as
>possible I ran into the Kodak unit. 14MP for approx. 4000 Euro. I could
>pay that money, but there are a couple of questions/issues:
>
>1. How much will I need to spend for lenses, to cover a focal length
>between 28 and 300 mm (or 28 and 140mm) ? Since the MP count is high,
>the lenses will obviously have to be very good.
>
>2. Was not impressed by the painfully slow 1.3MB/s card write speed.
>Given that I would only shoot RAW, this is very slow. Not clear why
>Kodak would put such a slow card interface into such an expensive
>camera.
>
>3. Never mind about high ISO noise issues, but dpreview complained that
>the resolution is not that great. Is this true ?

Your criteria for selecting a camera are almost all wrong.

1) The most MP possible in a handheld camera is around 25MP. Such
cameras run about $30,000. But I'd guess that unless you're doing
photography for a major magazine anything above 8MP is pointless.

2) Write speed is important only if you plan to be taking 30 pictures
in the space of 10 seconds. Most of the latest dSLRs have buffers
big enough for most uses.

3) Noise issues are important.

4) What lenses you will want depend entirely upon what you will be
taking pictures of.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <d4ke8e$r7s$1@bolt.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer says...
> Alfred Molon <alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >While looking for a (not to expensive) camera with as many MP as
> >possible I ran into the Kodak unit. 14MP for approx. 4000 Euro. I could
> >pay that money, but there are a couple of questions/issues:
> >
> >1. How much will I need to spend for lenses, to cover a focal length
> >between 28 and 300 mm (or 28 and 140mm) ? Since the MP count is high,
> >the lenses will obviously have to be very good.
> >
> >2. Was not impressed by the painfully slow 1.3MB/s card write speed.
> >Given that I would only shoot RAW, this is very slow. Not clear why
> >Kodak would put such a slow card interface into such an expensive
> >camera.
> >
> >3. Never mind about high ISO noise issues, but dpreview complained that
> >the resolution is not that great. Is this true ?
>
> Your criteria for selecting a camera are almost all wrong.
>
> 1) The most MP possible in a handheld camera is around 25MP. Such
> cameras run about $30,000. But I'd guess that unless you're doing
> photography for a major magazine anything above 8MP is pointless.

I need as much resolution as possible, but 30000 USD would be way too
much.

> 2) Write speed is important only if you plan to be taking 30 pictures
> in the space of 10 seconds. Most of the latest dSLRs have buffers
> big enough for most uses.

It is also important if you shoot RAW (20 or so MB per image).

> 3) Noise issues are important.

I usually shoot at lowest ISO, but yes, noise matters.

> 4) What lenses you will want depend entirely upon what you will be
> taking pictures of.

As I said, I'd like to cover the 28-300 mm range (although 28-140 might
suffice).
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Alfred Molon wrote:

> In article <d4ke8e$r7s$1@bolt.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer says...
>
>
>>1) The most MP possible in a handheld camera is around 25MP. Such
>>cameras run about $30,000. But I'd guess that unless you're doing
>>photography for a major magazine anything above 8MP is pointless.
>
>
> I spent an entire afternoon assembling this 84MP panorama:
> http://myolympus.org/document.php?id=1693


Whoah! That was time well spent. Amazing image with the light glow beams
going up from the buildings. That'd be a damn cool print at 45 inches
wide 300dpi.


>
> starting from 16 8MP images. Had I started from 14MP images, the effort
> would have been much lower.
>
> BTW, I have requests for very large images every now and then. 8MP is
> not always enough.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Very bad advice. I did exactly that but recently sold my Fuji 690
and 645 MF cameras as the Kodak SLR/n gave far better image
quality. In addition, the Kodak has all the advantages of the 35mm lens
system. Try getting resonable DOF/speed with MF lenses.

Its interesting that despite all the guff that's been written about the
supposed problems of the lack of an anti-aliasing filter, Canon have
followed Kodak's lead with the 20D of providing only minimal
anti-aliasing.

gsum

"Chris Brown" <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote in message
news:huc1k2-u92.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org...
> In article <MPG.1cd77ec740d9831f98aad6@news.supernews.com>,
> Alfred Molon <alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >While looking for a (not to expensive) camera with as many MP as
> >possible I ran into the Kodak unit. 14MP for approx. 4000 Euro. I could
> >pay that money, but there are a couple of questions/issues:
> >
> >1. How much will I need to spend for lenses, to cover a focal length
> >between 28 and 300 mm (or 28 and 140mm) ? Since the MP count is high,
> >the lenses will obviously have to be very good.
>
> The Kodaks are cheap (compared to other high resolution digital cameras)
for
> a reason - they aren't very good.
>
> If you really are after that sort of image quality on a "budget", then
your
> best bet is probably a medium format SLR and a scanner. The quality you
want
> will be exceeded by a 6*7 system and an inexpensive Epson 4990 flatbed.
That
> should leave you with change for your 4000 euros, giving you more to spend
> on lenses.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

DPReview is incorrect. I expected the Kodak to have about 2 1/2
times the resolution of the D100, given the pixel count but the
SLR/n performed far better than expectation. Unlike the D100,
the SLR/n is completely free of even the slightest hint of noise at
ISO 160, making huge prints a possibility. There is one snag - the
mid range zooms such as the 24-85 f3.4,4.5 are not sharp enough
for the incredible amount of detail that the SLR/n captures.
I invested in second hand primes such as the 24mm f2.8 and the
50mm f1.4.

Having said all that, 4000 euros seems a very high price. The
Kodak is based on the mid range F80 and has similar res to the
pro spec D2X. If you're set on the Kodak, I would wait until the D2X
ceased to be vapourware in Europe as I would expect the
Kodak's price to be driven down.

Ignore the posts that criticise the SLR/n as they are mainly
written by people who have never used one.

Steve

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 23:26:11 +0200, Alfred Molon
<alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:

>While looking for a (not to expensive) camera with as many MP as
>possible I ran into the Kodak unit. 14MP for approx. 4000 Euro. I could
>pay that money, but there are a couple of questions/issues:
>
>1. How much will I need to spend for lenses, to cover a focal length
>between 28 and 300 mm (or 28 and 140mm) ? Since the MP count is high,
>the lenses will obviously have to be very good.
>
>2. Was not impressed by the painfully slow 1.3MB/s card write speed.
>Given that I would only shoot RAW, this is very slow. Not clear why
>Kodak would put such a slow card interface into such an expensive
>camera.
>
>3. Never mind about high ISO noise issues, but dpreview complained that
>the resolution is not that great. Is this true ?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Alfred Molon" <alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cd78ac42dec194d98aad7@news.supernews.com...
> In article <j6ydnSzPyvAP-vDfRVnyrA@pipex.net>, Hannah says...
> >
> > The Kodak has a lot of MP but is lacking in good thorough quality. It's
> > really not in the same class - or price bracket of course - as the
almost
> > perfect 16.6MP Canon 1DSMk2, which is the only real option for high MP
> > counts other than digital backs on MF cameras.
>
> How much is the Canon 1DSMk2 ?
> --
>
Around the £5000 mark

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <MPG.1cd77ec740d9831f98aad6@news.supernews.com>,
Alfred Molon <alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:

>3. Never mind about high ISO noise issues, but dpreview complained that
>the resolution is not that great. Is this true ?

That doesn't make any sense; in fact, just the opposite is true.
Images, when using sharp optics, are aliased, because the pixel-to-pixel
contrast is so high without an AA filter.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

My understanding on the anti-aliasing filter is, it's essentially a
"low pass filter" or "band pass filter". Mainly to remove the fine
details beyond the photo sensor's capturing capability.In another word,
it "blurs" the image upfront.

Why bother to remove it if the sensor can't capture it anyway? The
theory is, without removing it, the "uncaptured" details does not go
away, but become noise that can be particularly annoying to the smooth
(low details) portion of the image.

The anti-aliasing filter is more effective in the audio world, or in
the world that is only one dimentional (audio can be viewed "time
domain" signal, one dimensional only). Image is a two dimensional
signal (image is a spatial signal, has two dimension: X-Y, or
width-height). The aliasing caused noise in the x-dimension can often
be identified and removed according to the Y-dimension information. In
a lot of situation, this gives the post-processing noise-reduction
software a great advantage over pre-filtering or pre-proecssing
devices. Although, post processing can not complete replace the
pre-processing.

Practiaclly speaking, many situations that anti-aliasing hardware can
helps can also be done by post-processing software. The bad side of the
anti-alas pre-filtering is, it's not clean. It unavoidably has to
remove more details than needed, and it will hurt the portions of the
image that is capturable by the sensor. In another word, you loss more
than you want in the upfront. There is gain, but there is also loss.
Very like the gain and loss balance is not worth the cost of the
expensive anti-aliasing filter.

It would be a clever choice if Canon choose to follow Kodak. Consider
what you can get from post-processing siftware, anti-aliasing is
perhapes more of a marketing gimick.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 08:00:49 +0200, Alfred Molon wrote:

> I usually shoot at lowest ISO, but yes, noise matters.

The review of the Pro DCS SLR/n (and SLR/c) that I mentioned
earlier is in the May 2005 issue of "Digital Photographer". It's
not really a full review, more an extended discussion of the cameras
by someone that has used the SLR/n extensively for more than a year.
Here's part of what it had to say about ISO and noise:

[referring to the DCS 14n introduced in 2002]
> My experience was that it made glorious pictures, reproducing detail far
> beyond anything seen from a previous digital camera or even from scanned
> film, but it all had to be done at ISO 80. At higher sensitivities, the shadow
> areas of most pictures (which means anything black, or significantly dark in
> the frame) became distressingly noisy until, by ISO 400, the output was
> virtually useless.

[skipping several paragraphs]

> A "snooze" mode has been added, retarding the rapid rundown of batteries
> in the older camera. The SLR/n (and SLR/c), as if to thumb noses at their
> predecessor's limits, make ISO 160 the slowest they can go in their normal
> range. I'd say the pictures at that setting are every bit as spectacular as the
> 14n's at half the speed. The new models output remains excellent at 200
> speed. At 400, some chroma noise creeps into the shadows, and at 640, the
> noise generally reaches my threshold of tolerence. I'd shoot at 800 only if
> forced. Forget 1600.
> But within those 160-400 parameters, a decent range of lighting can be
> accomodated, and both the SLR/n and SLR/c produce those startingly
> clear images that make any other consideration almost irrelevant.

This review briefly touches on blur, aliasing, and also mentions
that a full review of Canon's EOS 1Ds Mark II appears in the same
issue. And as with the Mark II, both Kodaks have dual card slots,
accepting both CF and SD cards.