Kodak DCS 14n vs. Canon EOS 1Ds

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Alfred Molon, Oct 17, 2003.

  1. Alfred Molon

    Alfred Molon Guest

    The 14n has a higher resolution and costs less, yet it gets heavily
    criticised in dpreview.com's review. Is the Canon really better ?
    Alfred Molon, Oct 17, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. Alfred Molon

    Matti Vuori Guest

    Short answer: Apparently it is.

    Long answer:
    * The resolution is only so much higher.
    * There are many reviews on both models out now, if one is considering a
    camera as expensive as those are, just one (professional one; newsgroup
    opinions are not counted here!) review is not enough to study.
    * Of course the Canon is better - it should be, being so much more
    * But the Kodak is still evolving... new s/w versions make it better.
    * Last but not least: It all depends on your needs and requirements! There
    is no such thing as a "better camera" as such.
    Matti Vuori, Oct 18, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. Alfred Molon

    Bill Hilton Guest

    From: Alfred Molon
    Haven't used either model, but from the reviews it sounds like the 14n does a
    great job in bright light situations, like in a studio, but has serious flaws
    that keep it from being useful in many typical non-studio situations. The long
    power-up time also seems like a big deterent to me.
    Bill Hilton, Oct 18, 2003
  4. Depends what you want to do. I've read a number of reports from 14n
    users who report great satisfaction with it -- almost exclusively in a
    studio setting.
    David Dyer-Bennet, Oct 18, 2003
  5. Alfred Molon

    Gavin Cato Guest

    The Kodak produces incredible results in a studio environment with
    controlled lighting.

    However, it is a cheap Nikon N80 with a 14mpixel sensor inside it. The Canon
    is a Pro line camera, i.e. super fast AF, build quality, and all the other
    things you'd expect out of a pro body.

    I've got nikon lenses in my bag, but I'd take the 1Ds as overall it's a more
    flexible camera, i.e. you can use it for more things than the 14N can be
    used for. One glaring example is the 14n's inadequate high iso support and
    long exposure noise which makes it unsuitable for low light landscapes,
    which is a pity or I'd buy one.

    Gavin Cato, Oct 18, 2003
  6. Alfred Molon

    ThomasH Guest

    An interesting comparative study is on:


    Apparently, pixels are not all. I am very impressed by Nikons
    decision to use "mere 4Mpix" in the new D2H, thus to break
    out of this race and go rather with a job oriented solution,
    regardless the number of pixels!

    ThomasH, Oct 20, 2003
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.