Kodak DCS Pro SLR/n: New 14Meg Full Frame Sensor

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by deryck lant, Feb 12, 2004.

  1. deryck  lant

    deryck lant Guest

    deryck lant, Feb 12, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. deryck  lant

    deryck lant Guest

    The message <>
    Much more . . .

    http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/SLRN/SLRNA.HTM

    http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-6452-6696

    This is going to be the year of the Nikon system.

    Deryck
     
    deryck lant, Feb 12, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. deryck  lant

    George Guest

    Have they given any hint on pricing? Any hints on what upgrade pricing is
    for existing DCS-14n owners?
     
    George, Feb 12, 2004
    #3
  4. deryck  lant

    deryck lant Guest

    I read somewhere upgrade pricing would be 1500 USD for sensor plus some
    electronics excluding memory.

    Deryck

    The message <>
     
    deryck lant, Feb 12, 2004
    #4
  5. deryck  lant

    KBob Guest

    KBob, Feb 12, 2004
    #5
  6. with greater sensitivity to ameliorate the ISO/noise limitations, and
    symmetric photodiodes to eliminate color gradation due to
    angle-of-incidence effects. And a new IR filter to reduce center-spot
    flare effects with certain lenses, and equalize sensitivity of the
    three color channels.
    New analog board, higher memory bandwidth. Better power management for
    much longer between charges.

    More careful dark-frame calibration for much faster startup. I think
    this may be included in the latest DCS 14n firmware.
    With the addition of a "card busy" light on the storage card door.
    Well, *better* low light performance. I bet it still will lag behind a
    number of other cameras. But presumably it will retain the enormous
    dynamic range of the 14n.
    With special long-exposure mode, already present in latest DCS 14n
    firmware.
     
    Stephen H. Westin, Feb 12, 2004
    #6
  7. But no microlenses, so I doubt it will live up to the hype. Maybe it'll be
    another stop faster: ISO 160 instead of 80. That'll be a big improvement.
    But competitive with Canon dSLRs? I seriously doubt it. Also, the lack of an
    antialiasing filter in a Bayer camera is unacceptable.
    I.e., they've fixed the worst of the design flaws... Unfortunately, the N80
    body is almost unusable with glasses (my glasses, any way). Sigh.
    Hmm. I need to look more closely at what the 14/n does when it works well.
    The long exposure modes sound interesting. Still, my experience (with MF
    landscape photography) is that even ISO 100 is pretty painful: it doesn't
    take much wind to make long expososures not an option.

    Still, I hope Kodak does succeed in fixing the worst of the problems. Even
    if it only works at ISO 160, that would put pressure on Canon to get off
    their duffs and come out with a US$3000 3D with the 1Ds sensor in it.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Feb 13, 2004
    #7
  8. deryck  lant

    DJ Guest

    Sounds like you are lending credence to the foveonite Belief that an AA isn't
    required on a Foveon sensor??
     
    DJ, Feb 13, 2004
    #8
  9. An AA filter is required for any sampled data sensor.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Feb 13, 2004
    #9
  10. Sorry. Didn't mean to. What I meant to say was that it was unconscionable
    not to include one in a Bayer camera since the yucky artifacts would result
    in more noise from the Foveon idiots.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Feb 13, 2004
    #10
  11. deryck  lant

    The Dude Guest

    The Dude, Feb 13, 2004
    #11
  12. David J. Littleboy, Feb 13, 2004
    #12
  13. I don't think you understand how the FillFactory chip works. Each
    sensel has a photosensitive area much larger than the photodiode
    itself; it uses the volume behind other circuit elements. See
    Looks like about 400 to my eye. And a number of folks have been happy
    at 160-200 on the 14n.
    Hmm. "Competitive"? Perhaps not in ISO. In resolution and dynamic
    range, better.

    I think you do. There are several subtle points to working with the camera:

    o Unlike most DSLR's, the margin for error is in overexposure. Like negative
    film, expose for the shadows and develop for highlights. A full 2 stops of
    overexposure can be pulled back.

    o Kodak chose to reproduce detail way down into the shadows; I think at least
    11 full stops. There is now a processing option in Photodesk to crunch the
    black level (to use a video term) to something more typical of other cameras,
    thus losing quite a bit of noise.

    A number of people have been very happy with the 14n; I think you can
    find Michael Reichmann on the Web, and others (e.g. Jono Slack) have
    posted some tasty images to the Kodak SLR forum at DPReview.

    The 14n is a camera with maddening limitations, but they are more
    maddening because of the image quality available under optimal
    conditions.

    <snip>
     
    Stephen H. Westin, Feb 13, 2004
    #13
  14. deryck  lant

    The Dude Guest

    While the 10D/300D are quieter at low ISO than the D100, at high ISOs they
    are a bit noisier. Perhaps it is even worse then a D100 at 6400 (HI-2). In
    any case, so much for the SLR/n sweeping the floor with the competition.
     
    The Dude, Feb 13, 2004
    #14
  15. deryck  lant

    W6DKN Guest

    That was a crap image to start with. Look here for examples of what the
    Kodak 14n can really do :

    http://snipurl.com/4hnl

    Looks like Kodak "raised the bar" for Canon and Nikon both with this one...

    = Dan =
     
    W6DKN, Feb 13, 2004
    #15
  16. But the ISO 400 images looked quite usable, and the large dark areas
    in the 800 image are the worst case, at least for this camera. It
    would be interesting to play with the raw file; I bet the noise could
    be reduced.
    Or rather,
    Well, we have two of the silly opinions about the camera here. First,
    that it's a loser because you really don't want to shoot ISO 3200 with
    it, and second, that it's better at everything than other DSLR's. The
    14n is a camera of great capabilities but maddening limitations; the
    Pro/n loosens some of those limitations so that more people can make
    use of the capabilities. But it's not a fast shooter, at 1.7 fps, nor
    is it the ISO king. And flash syncs at only 1/125 max, etc.
     
    Stephen H. Westin, Feb 13, 2004
    #16
  17. deryck  lant

    KBob Guest

    One thing that bothers me about the 14n's imaging is the "smearing"
    effect that can often be seen (for example) on blades of grass. Like
    various areas have been gone over with a blending stub. This is a
    severe enough problem that even smaller 11X14 prints will show it.
    Hopefully the SLR/n has addressed this.
     
    KBob, Feb 13, 2004
    #17
  18. deryck  lant

    KBob Guest

    Maddening is the right word--at times the 14n can deliver images that
    are truly second to none. Guess we'll all have to bend over and send
    them in for the upgrade...I do however get the impression that Kodak
    is using us as expensive guinea pigs. What the hell, it's only money,
    right??
     
    KBob, Feb 13, 2004
    #18
  19. Talk is cheap. Lets see the noise performance.
    The ISO 800 shot I downloaded was a joke (far worse than 10D ISO 3200):
    extrapolating, I'd say ISO 100 would probably be problematic.
    If you read between the lines in the above, what you just said is that Kodak
    overrates the ISO by two f stops.

    I realize people have been able to get good studio shots from the 14n, but
    it appears to still be a disaster in the ISO area.
    MR isn't a great source: it took him 6 months to notice the hideous blue
    channel noise in his Kodak MF back. And even when he noticed it, it didn't
    bother him.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Feb 13, 2004
    #19
  20. Sorry, I didn't intend to argue Canon vs Nikon, I intended to disagree with
    your assesment of the value of that image: there's almost no valid
    information there. It's a pitiful joke.

    As I mentioned in my other note, it seems that Kodak is overrating the ISO
    by several f stops and claiming that it has more headroom. This is right up
    there with the Olympus "parallel rays" lie and the Foveon snake oil.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Feb 13, 2004
    #20
    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.