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

All new CMOS 14Meg full frame sensor built in new factory

All new electronics

Still based on Nikon N80 body

Good low light performance

ISO 6-1600

Available early March

Sample gallery

Whoopee!

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0402/04021209kodakdcsproslrn.asp

Deryck

 

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

 

Have they given any hint on pricing? Any hints on what upgrade pricing is
for existing DCS-14n owners?

 

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

Deryck

The message <>

 

$1495. See http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/SLRN/SLRNA.HTM

 

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.

 

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

 

Sounds like you are lending credence to the foveonite Belief that an AA isn't
required on a Foveon sensor??

 

An AA filter is required for any sampled data sensor.

Cheers,
David

 

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

 

Very noisy at iso800. Looks like a D100 @ 3200.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/SLRN/YGD4F0164.HTM

 

That's a _lot_ worse than the 10D at 3200. That's seriously ridiculous.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

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>

 

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.

 

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 =

 

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.

 

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.

 

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??

 

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

 

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