KODAK CANON-KILLER !!!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Annika1980, Aug 10, 2004.

  1. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    If you want a good laugh go check out the September issue of Popular
    Photography where they review the new Kodak DCS Pro SLR/c which is the 13.5 MP
    Canon lens mount version of the SLR/n.

    The street price of this model is listed at $4,500 which is only a fraction of
    the 11MP 1Ds. Incidentally, a Yugo is a fraction of the price of a Lexus, but
    I digress.

    Pop Photo does their usual non-comprehensive review and they even list one of
    the drawbacks of the unit .... no popup flash!
    Gee, for $4 large you'd think you'd get a flash, right?

    Oh and get this, the body is made by an unknown company, but Pop Photo
    proclaims that it is none other than Sigma. The body style is similar to a
    Sigma and many toy kiddie cameras.

    The article even committed a bit of heresy by mentioning this turd in the same
    breath as the Canon EOS MK II. It says the Kodak "captures noticeably sharper
    images" than the MK II. Gee, I wonder if there is some in-camera sharpening
    going on here? The article failed to mention that at all. Also, no photos to
    compare. Good job, guys.

    Also confusing is the following sentence," The Kodak boasts slightly lower
    noise levels at ISO 160-400, about the same as the Mark II at ISO 800, and
    worse at ISO 1250-1600." Uh, wouldn't this make the Kodak's noise levels WORSE
    than the MKII?

    The final paragraph, which I won't print here, pretty much says that you get
    what you pay for. If you want cheap Kodak/Sigma shit then waste your $4.5K on
    this garbage. If you want a professional camera get a Canon.
    Annika1980, Aug 10, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Annika1980

    Mark M Guest

    "Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > If you want a good laugh go check out the September issue of Popular
    > Photography where they review the new Kodak DCS Pro SLR/c which is the

    13.5 MP
    > Canon lens mount version of the SLR/n.
    >
    > The street price of this model is listed at $4,500 which is only a

    fraction of
    > the 11MP 1Ds. Incidentally, a Yugo is a fraction of the price of a Lexus,

    but
    > I digress.
    >
    > Pop Photo does their usual non-comprehensive review and they even list one

    of
    > the drawbacks of the unit .... no popup flash!
    > Gee, for $4 large you'd think you'd get a flash, right?


    The flash line says it all.
    These Pop Photo guys are just plain idiots.

    But then...what would one expect from a catalog publisher that is burdened
    with the task of sprinkling non-catalog photo-related snippits here and
    there between the libraries of adverts...especially when they've nobody on
    staff who owns a camera.
    Mark M, Aug 10, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Annika1980

    gsum Guest

    Hmmm

    The SLR/n/c predecessor, the 14n was made by Nikon with Kodak
    electronics. It was effectively a £350 F80 with £3000 of elecronics.
    As the sensor was very noisy at higher ISOs, the camera was very
    limited in its usage. But, I've seen some results and they are very
    impressive. The 14n is a great landscape camera and there
    are plenty of bargains around at the moment.
    The SLR/n/c is made by Sigma and apparently has cr@p ergonomics.
    Obviously it is no Canon but it is the only camera with a sensor exceeding
    6mp avalable to Nikon users. Perhaps there is a message for Nikon here?

    Graham

    "Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > If you want a good laugh go check out the September issue of Popular
    > Photography where they review the new Kodak DCS Pro SLR/c which is the

    13.5 MP
    > Canon lens mount version of the SLR/n.
    >
    > The street price of this model is listed at $4,500 which is only a

    fraction of
    > the 11MP 1Ds. Incidentally, a Yugo is a fraction of the price of a Lexus,

    but
    > I digress.
    >
    > Pop Photo does their usual non-comprehensive review and they even list one

    of
    > the drawbacks of the unit .... no popup flash!
    > Gee, for $4 large you'd think you'd get a flash, right?
    >
    > Oh and get this, the body is made by an unknown company, but Pop Photo
    > proclaims that it is none other than Sigma. The body style is similar to

    a
    > Sigma and many toy kiddie cameras.
    >
    > The article even committed a bit of heresy by mentioning this turd in the

    same
    > breath as the Canon EOS MK II. It says the Kodak "captures noticeably

    sharper
    > images" than the MK II. Gee, I wonder if there is some in-camera

    sharpening
    > going on here? The article failed to mention that at all. Also, no photos

    to
    > compare. Good job, guys.
    >
    > Also confusing is the following sentence," The Kodak boasts slightly lower
    > noise levels at ISO 160-400, about the same as the Mark II at ISO 800, and
    > worse at ISO 1250-1600." Uh, wouldn't this make the Kodak's noise levels

    WORSE
    > than the MKII?
    >
    > The final paragraph, which I won't print here, pretty much says that you

    get
    > what you pay for. If you want cheap Kodak/Sigma shit then waste your

    $4.5K on
    > this garbage. If you want a professional camera get a Canon.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    gsum, Aug 10, 2004
    #3
  4. Annika1980

    peteZ Guest

    You .... are an idiot

    I find it hard to believe someone could have manufactured such rubbish as
    ths post.

    Maybe go consider another outlet - oh and dont forget to flush.

    thanks,

    - peteZ


    "Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > If you want a good laugh go check out the September issue of Popular
    > Photography where they review the new Kodak DCS Pro SLR/c which is the

    13.5 MP
    > Canon lens mount version of the SLR/n.
    >
    > The street price of this model is listed at $4,500 which is only a

    fraction of
    > the 11MP 1Ds. Incidentally, a Yugo is a fraction of the price of a Lexus,

    but
    > I digress.
    >
    > Pop Photo does their usual non-comprehensive review and they even list one

    of
    > the drawbacks of the unit .... no popup flash!
    > Gee, for $4 large you'd think you'd get a flash, right?
    >
    > Oh and get this, the body is made by an unknown company, but Pop Photo
    > proclaims that it is none other than Sigma. The body style is similar to

    a
    > Sigma and many toy kiddie cameras.
    >
    > The article even committed a bit of heresy by mentioning this turd in the

    same
    > breath as the Canon EOS MK II. It says the Kodak "captures noticeably

    sharper
    > images" than the MK II. Gee, I wonder if there is some in-camera

    sharpening
    > going on here? The article failed to mention that at all. Also, no photos

    to
    > compare. Good job, guys.
    >
    > Also confusing is the following sentence," The Kodak boasts slightly lower
    > noise levels at ISO 160-400, about the same as the Mark II at ISO 800, and
    > worse at ISO 1250-1600." Uh, wouldn't this make the Kodak's noise levels

    WORSE
    > than the MKII?
    >
    > The final paragraph, which I won't print here, pretty much says that you

    get
    > what you pay for. If you want cheap Kodak/Sigma shit then waste your

    $4.5K on
    > this garbage. If you want a professional camera get a Canon.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    peteZ, Aug 10, 2004
    #4
  5. Annika1980

    Bowser Guest

    If you want to see how good the Kodak cams are, take a look at the
    resolution chart results on the DPReview site for this cam. The thing, due
    to the lack of an anti-aliasing filter, literally falls apart at resolution
    limits. Under certain conditions, it's nice. Anything out of the ordinary,
    forget it. Pass on the Kodaks.

    "Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > If you want a good laugh go check out the September issue of Popular
    > Photography where they review the new Kodak DCS Pro SLR/c which is the

    13.5 MP
    > Canon lens mount version of the SLR/n.
    >
    > The street price of this model is listed at $4,500 which is only a

    fraction of
    > the 11MP 1Ds. Incidentally, a Yugo is a fraction of the price of a Lexus,

    but
    > I digress.
    >
    > Pop Photo does their usual non-comprehensive review and they even list one

    of
    > the drawbacks of the unit .... no popup flash!
    > Gee, for $4 large you'd think you'd get a flash, right?
    >
    > Oh and get this, the body is made by an unknown company, but Pop Photo
    > proclaims that it is none other than Sigma. The body style is similar to

    a
    > Sigma and many toy kiddie cameras.
    >
    > The article even committed a bit of heresy by mentioning this turd in the

    same
    > breath as the Canon EOS MK II. It says the Kodak "captures noticeably

    sharper
    > images" than the MK II. Gee, I wonder if there is some in-camera

    sharpening
    > going on here? The article failed to mention that at all. Also, no photos

    to
    > compare. Good job, guys.
    >
    > Also confusing is the following sentence," The Kodak boasts slightly lower
    > noise levels at ISO 160-400, about the same as the Mark II at ISO 800, and
    > worse at ISO 1250-1600." Uh, wouldn't this make the Kodak's noise levels

    WORSE
    > than the MKII?
    >
    > The final paragraph, which I won't print here, pretty much says that you

    get
    > what you pay for. If you want cheap Kodak/Sigma shit then waste your

    $4.5K on
    > this garbage. If you want a professional camera get a Canon.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    Bowser, Aug 10, 2004
    #5
  6. Re: You .... are an idiot

    "peteZ" <> wrote in news:ti2Sc.44306$K53.1734@news-
    server.bigpond.net.au:

    > I find it hard to believe someone could have manufactured such
    > rubbis has ths post.


    It is a bit exaggerating I must admit.

    But it do start some thinking.

    Some years ago Kodak released top of the line digital cameras
    with Nikon or Canon mounts. They were EXPENSIVE, but nevertheless
    it was rather impressive that they managed to release cameras
    that no competitor could even compete with.

    Now, several years later, they continue to release cameras that
    pretends to be in the same league. But ... they have choosen a
    sensor that is far from optimal for their newer cameras. They have
    also choosen no anti alias filter. And now they use Sigma bodies.

    The Canon 1Ds is now the top of the line product, and have been
    so for rather a long time. It is full frame and it is 11 Mpixels.
    It is also $8000 - so it is expensive. It is a real top of the
    line camera with a very good sensor and anti alias filter.

    So - what is Kodak's niche today? A competing product at about
    half the price of an 1Ds? A product with several drawbacks. Hmmm ...
    who needs it? It only works well in good lighting conditions. Hmmm ..
    studio work? ... landscape work?


    /Roland
    Roland Karlsson, Aug 10, 2004
    #6
  7. Annika1980

    Hils Guest

    gsum wrote

    >Obviously it is no Canon but it is the only camera with a sensor exceeding
    >6mp avalable to Nikon users.


    There's nothing stopping Nikon users buying an EOS-1Ds or 1D2. They can
    even use many Nikon lenses on them with a choice of three different
    makes of adapter.

    >Perhaps there is a message for Nikon here?


    Make EF-mount lenses! :)

    --
    Hil
    Hils, Aug 10, 2004
    #7
  8. Yeah like Kodak slipped up?

    Get real and grab a hold of reality

    Arts

    "Hils" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > gsum wrote
    >
    > >Obviously it is no Canon but it is the only camera with a sensor

    exceeding
    > >6mp avalable to Nikon users.

    >
    > There's nothing stopping Nikon users buying an EOS-1Ds or 1D2. They can
    > even use many Nikon lenses on them with a choice of three different
    > makes of adapter.
    >
    > >Perhaps there is a message for Nikon here?

    >
    > Make EF-mount lenses! :)
    >
    > --
    > Hil
    Arty Phacting, Aug 10, 2004
    #8
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Jim Waggener

    ..looks like a Canon 10D, 300D ,Nikon D100 killer to me......

    Jim Waggener, Feb 3, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    37
    Views:
    850
    Charlie Self
    Feb 6, 2004
  2. Joe
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    947
    Banjopikr1
    Feb 8, 2004
  3. RED
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    911
  4. RED
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    858
  5. Focus

    Hasselblad (and Canon 1Ds MIII) killer?

    Focus, Mar 20, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    596
    C J Campbell
    Mar 22, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page