Reading mode: Light Dark

KOdak SLR/c yes or no?

Go to last post
B

Bernie Ess

Veteran Member
Messages
7,153
Solutions
1
Reaction score
429
Location
Garmisch, DE
Hello everyone, I have studied a lot of online sources lately, after 3 years of Fuji S2/ S3 I have bought a 5d this year, and although the quality of the Canon is good, I am not overly happy with the color and DR. DR can be worked around with neutral grad filters, HD images etc, that is ok, color is more difficult. I have tried out virtually every converter, it can be boosted, but then it risks to look - artificial.

By what I have seen from the Kodak, it has a more pleasing color palette, or color balance. I dont mind resolution, the 5d is all I need for now...

So, I know the limitations of the Kodak, ISO 160 if possible not higher, clunky body, but nevertheless those very true, film like colors are attractive. Well, the grass is always greener on...

Some users of the Kodak think it is not better than the Canon (like Rainer V.), but I have yet to see 5d pics that have strong AND natural color.

On the other hand I habe also seen Kodak pictures that are not special at all and could be done with a Canon identically...

So, I have a Kodak SLR-c at hand in excellent condition for a reasonable price used that may be available until beginning of next week, so I will try to decide this week- end and then buy it or forget Kodak. It is not in my city, so I cannot shoot some pictures and check for myself...

Is there something that you can tell me about both cameras that hasn't been said 1000 times?

I am having a hard time to decide :-)

regards, Bernie
 
Hi Bernie,

Color & quality aside, the SLR/c is clunkier that you can imagine in evey sense. AF is a sad joke with this camera. I'm not a speed shooter by any means but even I couldn't deal with the SLR/c. I highly recommend that you look at the SLR/n instead, its very close to the S3 in operation speed, something that you're familiar with already.

david
Bernie Ess said:
Hello everyone, I have studied a lot of online sources lately,
after 3 years of Fuji S2/ S3 I have bought a 5d this year, and
although the quality of the Canon is good, I am not overly happy
with the color and DR. DR can be worked around with neutral grad
filters, HD images etc, that is ok, color is more difficult. I have
tried out virtually every converter, it can be boosted, but then it
risks to look - artificial.

By what I have seen from the Kodak, it has a more pleasing color
palette, or color balance. I dont mind resolution, the 5d is all I
need for now...

So, I know the limitations of the Kodak, ISO 160 if possible not
higher, clunky body, but nevertheless those very true, film like
colors are attractive. Well, the grass is always greener on...

Some users of the Kodak think it is not better than the Canon (like
Rainer V.), but I have yet to see 5d pics that have strong AND
natural color.

On the other hand I habe also seen Kodak pictures that are not
special at all and could be done with a Canon identically...

So, I have a Kodak SLR-c at hand in excellent condition for a
reasonable price used that may be available until beginning of next
week, so I will try to decide this week- end and then buy it or
forget Kodak. It is not in my city, so I cannot shoot some pictures
and check for myself...

Is there something that you can tell me about both cameras that
hasn't been said 1000 times?

I am having a hard time to decide :-)

regards, Bernie
Click to expand...
 
Hi Bernie:

In truth, their really isn't one can say that hasn't been posted at least 1000 times. But, you're lucky. There's not much else happening her on the forum.

In good faith, I cannot recommend anyone purchase a Kodak at this point in time. As much as I love the camera and all it offers, the fact that Kodak will not be around to service the camera in 16 months makes it a 'purchase at your own risk.' To me, as a professional, it's simply not the route I would take my business.

True, there are many who see the color from the Kodak as very natural. This though, is as much as a product of the camera as it is the ability of the shooter to process the RAW files. Unlike your Fuji or Canon, a fairly good understanding of WB [how to correct and achieve] as well as a very good understanding of CURVES, LEVELS, COLOR CORRECTIONS and NOISE control is needed to exploit what the camera offers. The use of a grey card [if you are photographing people] is a must. Those images you viewed that were 'not special' were probably the result of poor processing.

Additionally, the ability to not ZOOM to 100 or 200% is also handy. At these percents, many artifacts can be seen on screen that simply don't materialize in prints.

Having written that and all that I wrote in the last post regarding Kodak color [1/3 down the page or so], after looking at my last few weddings shot with the Kodak and the D200, the Kodak is the clear winner when it comes to color and overall feel of the images.

Good luck.

[side note to Bill V.] Yes Bill, if you feel the gut wrenching desire to write "did you just write that..." You may. I deserve it. Maybe there is something to the Kodak color after all. LOL!
--
Rick

We all know what it can't do. Show me what you can do with it.
 
Hi Rick,

I have to agree with you on all points, except most people don't want to do all those things. Curves, level, contrast, balck magic, and fairy tales!! Every time a new camera comes out, it touts better this and better that and a really nice body and no noise. They never really dwell on the color or DR. I just shot a little job with a friends D200 and I have to say that the JPG's looks okay, acceptable. Good for production, but not in the same league as the Kodak. Detail is not the same either. I forgot about the AA filter. At first I thought the focus was slightly off but then I remembered. They manage to reduce the noise by offering dull colors and a smaller DR. I see it in the files, especially in the blacks. The D200 clips the black more than the Kodak. Iv'e had to use this technique in my ISO400 Kodak files but it really raises the punch in the images. Noise is gone then.

Most people I know who shoot with Canon and Nikon don't even know what RAW is and complain about everything especially WB. They want a point and shoot professional camera. They want the results of film but they forget that the lab fixed their sins.

Your right about dealing with RAW. If you play with it with all those tools you mentioned, you can get stunning results, but I think most people want them out of the camera without effort. ME TOO!!

The Kodak SLRn has been more robust than I expected and more versatile than I hoped. This camera has worked for me in doors and out doors. In good light and challenged in bad light. The results have ranged from OMG to dear me. The RAW files are are so versatile and forgiving as long as you DO NOT underexpose. I actually looked at a D2x but I discovered that the high ISO is not that good. I realize that the next camera I get, I will be looking for good high ISO (800 - 1600) and will have to give up the Kodak look, color, detail and DR.

I've standardized on Bibble for my RAW converter and have gotten some nice results. THe only complaint is that it doesn't have auto features like ACR as a start point. Better noise reduction than ACR!!

My 2 cents.

PAul
 
Other than what's been said, I also think a lot has to do with your shooting style. I approach using the slr/c like a mf camera and really like the results over my canon's. I use it for studio and scenics. I shoot in raw all the time and convert the files using silkypix. It does very good with moire reduction and, with some practice, the images are ready to go w/o ps.

Conversely, if I'm going to be hand holding while walking around, I grab my 10d. For instance, when I'm walking around site seeing. If I'm shooting sports, I'll grab the 1d.

IMO, people overstate the support aspect. If something mechanical breaks, I'm sure you can get it fixed for some time to come. I've had my om's repaired long after they weren't made anymore. Also, I'm not convinced if something electronic went wrong with my "old" canon's I could get them repaired. At this point it would be hit or miss. BTW, some people have sold there 10d/1d's because of worrying about support (or more realistically, their way of validating an upgrade!).

I've also seen slr/c's going for about $1k now. Just about a steal.

IMO, in today's 12-18mo model turn around, buying used and not worrying about it is the smart way to go. The key is if you can live with the slr/c shooting style.
 
Paul,
I am curious about your profile of Bibble Ninjai?
Would you please to talk more about the Bibble experience?
Thanx a lot!
 
I will not get it. Not because I dont believe that it is not possible to get outstanding results with the SLR, but because what is valid for the SLR-c is also valid for the 5d. I dont feel I have explored the potential of the 5d completely, specially for color.

Actually I just installed Bibble 2 days ago, and my initial testings seem quite favorable.

And, through a friend I came across a quite cheap, almost new Canon 135/F2 L sold by a guy who works in a camera shop (it is his personal lens) and who does not find it his ideal focal lenght...

So instead of the Kodak I got a lens. And a very good one....

Also, this will not have been the last SLR-c offered.

Thank you for your opinions,

regards, Bernie
 
. . .you are aware of the limitations of the camera such as nothing above ISO 400, studio only and a few other things such as does it have all the firmware upgrades etc.

The camera shoots beautifully within its limitations, Canon can't touch it.

Cheers

Jules
 
Bernie Ess said:
By what I have seen from the Kodak, it has a more pleasing color
palette, or color balance. I dont mind resolution, the 5d is all I
need for now...
Click to expand...
I don't have experience with the Canon but from what I know it is very comparable to Nikon for the DR while noise is better than Nikon and about colors is question of taste. I do have other two Nikons beside the Kodak The D100 & D200, colors, DR, resolution, they are pathetic compared to the Kodak. Particularly color and DR (resolution is not fair game for the D100). You can get great photos out of these cameras, if it wasn't for the Kodak I would be very happy with them but the Kodak is just better, MUCH better.

Now, why I said "it depends" ? If you are looking for high ISO the Kodak is not for you (although at low ISO there is no noise at all in my photos, much better than my D200), if you are using for high speed the Kodak is not a machine gun.The great buffer makes the camera always ready so there is no pain at all but you are limited to a couple of frames/sec or so.

I just went out shooting surfers with the slow Kodak and 80-400VR compo. The photos are really great the the DR helped me a lot.

All and all, if you are for good quality fotos like you would do with a mid-format the Kodak is really a great camera, short of a digital back is the best camera out there in my opinion (I'm talking about IQ not speed or other fancy stuff). I'm so happy with mine that I'm planning to buy a second one just as a back up. It would be too sad to go around the world without my Kodak.

The 5D though is a different thing and if you have only one camera is probably the best compromise out there. I doubt it has the DR and colors of the Kodak. The S3 has great DR and colors but for me has not enough resolution and it is too slow.

--
Regards
Gabriele
California, CA
 
you may be right to not get it. way back in the old days I use to use the kodak pro backs when the 1ds first cam out we got one of them and it was hard to ajust to the color differance but that is all it is. just like film days in a dark room you have to change your color head between fuji film and kodak film. I think of it in the same way. I do still shoot with a slr/c and have never had mosty of the problems talked about but I have used kodaks both 760 and pro backs for years so i like the workflow. I shoot from studio and buildings and even weddings with the slr/c. I do worry of the time I need to replace it I know I wont be happy with the 5d so just hopping my slr/c holds out till the 15d or 5d II or what ever canon does. or even insane kodak getting back in the game. who knows these days sony may buy kodak. nothing would suprise me.
 
I tried Bibble, Silkpix, ACR, Lightroom, RAW Threapee and RAW Magick. Each had it's merits. ACR and Lightroom have the best tone curve for the Kodak, but crappy sharpening and noise control and I hated the Library function in LR. Also, LR's interface is not very intuitive. You essentiallly have to memorize keyboard shortcuts to make it work. I just didn't like Silkpix. Raw Therapee was slow. RAW Magick had the best demosaicing engine and noise plugin but has now become vaporware.

Bibble, and Noise Ninja are a good pair for the Kodak but you also have to use the color noise function in the Noise Tab in the Detail section. Put it at 100% and leave it there. The demosaicing is not as good as RML but it more than good enough for everyday production and it's fast!! There's a plugin call Siggy that solves there highlight issues and I know it's going to be around. Noise Ninja is good and helps with the ISO 400 files. I'm a Neat Image guy but NN does the job. The other thing that sold me on Bibble was that ALL the functions I want are right there every time. 99% of the time you don't need to go anywhere else. They don't have a cloning tool. If they did, it would be complete. The other thing that I wish they had was Auto functions is the basic panel controls and Edge Sharpening.

Hope this helps.

Paul
 
Thanks to Paul.
I'm now getting deep into Bibble, I like it very much too.
It really can produce everything except for the Clone tool and Masks:D
 
Hi Everyone

It's been ages since I last checked out the Kodak forum - good to see you are still going strong.

I own both a 5D and Kodak SLR/c and I must admit I use the 5D 95% of the time. As a full time photographer I always shoot in RAW and use Silkypix or DXO to process the images. Now for me DXO saves a lot of time as it corrects distortion and other issues automatically BUT the Kodak is not included in the modules so it can't process the images. This is the problem with an "old" camera - new software may well ignore it.

I keep thinking about selling the SLR/c but every now and then I find a use for the ISO 6 or 12 feature - in fact I did a shoot in the hospitality village at Lords cricket ground yesterday and although the 5D took most of the workload the Kodak produced some very cool images of streams of people queueing up for food with an 8 second exposure at ISO 6.

The colour of the Kodak images shot with the WB set to overcast (as it was very grey) look odd in the RAW software when compared to the 5D images so you do need to work on the WB in post processing.

In short I would recommend the 5D every time - it works so well for me but I think for low ISO work and maybe for landscape work the Kodak would still come out on top.

Best of luck with your decision.

Cheers
Dave Thrower
http://www.redshift-photography.co.uk
 
FWIW i have both and still think the kodak superior

DR, Color Palatte and detail

to Rick :-)

there is a quite extensive thread not that far down, read it.

most importantly if you treat it like a medium format the foibles will bother you less. if you want a fast shooting 35mm, forget it.

love mine

bill
 
bill vann said:
most importantly if you treat it like a medium format the foibles
will bother you less.
Click to expand...
But will you also get so much more than medium format gives over 35mm? Not just a tiny bit more sharpness and a bit more vivid colors?

I am not suggesting that it is not the case, just asking. And doubting :-)

Bernie
 
I have been experimenting with conversion software in order to avoid the often plastikish - or artificial - looking color of the 5d. I finally feel that Bibble produces some nice looking colors, that are more natural than other solutions and nevertheless pleasing and not too boring.

Here is a sample (overview) and a 100% crop - what would the convinced Kodak user say - good or cra*p? BTW, the slightly milky/ dreamy look is because in my TS-E lens are a few drops of what is probably oil on an inner lens - I have to get it cleaned first, but I don t think this changes the color too much....

Overview pic:



100% crop - link only because of size:
http://i.pbase.com/o4/07/40907/1/66209149.SQd67wfy.Gendarmenmarktpbasecrop.jpg

So in terms of color look, and micro contrast or whatever you call it - are Kodak pics better?

Thanks for your honest opinion...

Bernie
 
Others will likely add or challenge, but i ultimately think the real difference is the lackk off an AA filter on Kodaks.

as you know they are "blur" filters. Couple that with the bayer array and you loose too much fine detail and microcontrast thus the "plastic look" great for portraiture.

i think most medium format digital backs come without an AA filter and i personally suspect this is why.

i think the kodak gives the same advantage as medium format over 35mm across the board.

not pixel peeping, but as i said in an earlier post people i shared my test PRINTS with pick the kodak at about 85% accuracy. least accurate is portraiture where most people like a "softer, flatter" image.

i print the kodak to 24x36

bill
 
Bernie Ess said:
I will not get it. Not because I don't believe that it is not
possible to get outstanding results with the SLR, but because what
is valid for the SLR-c is also valid for the 5d.
Click to expand...
Bernie: I wish I had seen your initial post sooner. I've owned the Kodak SLR/c for several months now and also own a Canon 10D, 1D and 1Ds Mark II, which replaced a 1Ds.

The Kodak produces the best, most natural, most film-like files of the bunch...though it's definitely a quirky camera and takes a while to learn. I took the time to learn it like the back of my hand and have mated it with lenses that are right for it. I couldn't be more pleased with the photo files this camera produces.

What is valid for the SLR/c is NOT valid for the 5D. The 5D has a tendency to exhibit the same artificiality as every hi-rez DLSR I've worked with so far, including the 1Ds II. The Canons render very fine detail...particularly landscape detail...in a subtle but quite noticeable painting-like way, which is VERY noticeable at higher ISOs. No conversion software I know of is able to totally get rid of this rendering style, and other suggestions I've read about (such as adding noise to a shot) don't work either. It's in the files, gets more pronounced with even mild USM, and it's what many fine art galleries and publishers call "the digital look." They are quite correct in calling it that. It's something the Canons and Nikons of the world need to keep working on and get rid of. I'm sure they will some day.

But in the here and now, my Kodak SLR/c produces high-rez files with LESS of this artificial look than any camera I've owned and used or still own and use. The Kodak color is absolutely the best, the dynamic range is excellent, and conversion from RAW to TIFF with PhotoDesk is quicker and easier than conversion of any of my Canon files using PhotoShop, Raw Developer or anything else.

I doubt that my Kodak SLR/c is any better than any other Kodak SLR/c out there. And I strongly doubt it's going to fall apart or crash on me at any time in the forseeable future. If it does...so what? It didn't cost me that much to begin with, and I've got hundreds of pics from this camera that I could not have gotten in any other way or with any other DSLR. I also think that someone, somewhere, is going to pick up the slack on Kodak DSLR camera service (maybe KEH in Atlanta?) because there are an awful lot of Kodak DSLRs out there that people still use and that they'll want to keep.

The Kodak SLR/c is a great, great camera....much maligned and much misunderstood. It's better in many respects than my 1Ds Mark II and worse in others. Like my 1D (Mark 1), it's one of the best cameras ever made and remains the ONLY camera offering long exposures below ISO 50 and as low as ISO 6...something you need to try and see to believe. When printed on an Epson R1800 or better (I generally print on an Epson 4000), the files at these lower settings are the cleanest and most film-like you will ever see. Indeed, they are often identical to film. I cannot usually say the same of my Canons, except perhaps for portraits and other photography where fine detail is less critical or where the prints are smallish.

I hope this post doesn't make you crazy by having you go back and forth with your decision-making, but it's hard for me to read a thread like this and just sit idly by. I agree that it's a difficult camera, and I agree that service COULD become an issue. But as Michael Caine says in the movie Weather Man,"Nothing that could be called 'easy' ever enters into adult life."

Regards,

--
SteveG
http://www.pbase.com/smgarey
 
I found your post very interesting, and was wondering how you feel about the output from the S3 - Fujista's ofen say it is more filmic, presumably die to the wider DR and also the greater number of bits leading to smoother tonal transitions.
veroman said:
Bernie Ess said:
I will not get it. Not because I don't believe that it is not
possible to get outstanding results with the SLR, but because what
is valid for the SLR-c is also valid for the 5d.
Click to expand...
Bernie: I wish I had seen your initial post sooner. I've owned the
Kodak SLR/c for several months now and also own a Canon 10D, 1D and
1Ds Mark II, which replaced a 1Ds.

The Kodak produces the best, most natural, most film-like files of
the bunch...though it's definitely a quirky camera and takes a
while to learn. I took the time to learn it like the back of my
hand and have mated it with lenses that are right for it. I
couldn't be more pleased with the photo files this camera produces.

What is valid for the SLR/c is NOT valid for the 5D. The 5D has a
tendency to exhibit the same artificiality as every hi-rez DLSR
I've worked with so far, including the 1Ds II. The Canons render
very fine detail...particularly landscape detail...in a subtle but
quite noticeable painting-like way, which is VERY noticeable at
higher ISOs. No conversion software I know of is able to totally
get rid of this rendering style, and other suggestions I've read
about (such as adding noise to a shot) don't work either. It's in
the files, gets more pronounced with even mild USM, and it's what
many fine art galleries and publishers call "the digital look."
They are quite correct in calling it that. It's something the
Canons and Nikons of the world need to keep working on and get rid
of. I'm sure they will some day.

But in the here and now, my Kodak SLR/c produces high-rez files
with LESS of this artificial look than any camera I've owned and
used or still own and use. The Kodak color is absolutely the best,
the dynamic range is excellent, and conversion from RAW to TIFF
with PhotoDesk is quicker and easier than conversion of any of my
Canon files using PhotoShop, Raw Developer or anything else.

I doubt that my Kodak SLR/c is any better than any other Kodak
SLR/c out there. And I strongly doubt it's going to fall apart or
crash on me at any time in the forseeable future. If it does...so
what? It didn't cost me that much to begin with, and I've got
hundreds of pics from this camera that I could not have gotten in
any other way or with any other DSLR. I also think that someone,
somewhere, is going to pick up the slack on Kodak DSLR camera
service (maybe KEH in Atlanta?) because there are an awful lot of
Kodak DSLRs out there that people still use and that they'll want
to keep.

The Kodak SLR/c is a great, great camera....much maligned and much
misunderstood. It's better in many respects than my 1Ds Mark II and
worse in others. Like my 1D (Mark 1), it's one of the best cameras
ever made and remains the ONLY camera offering long exposures below
ISO 50 and as low as ISO 6...something you need to try and see to
believe. When printed on an Epson R1800 or better (I generally
print on an Epson 4000), the files at these lower settings are the
cleanest and most film-like you will ever see. Indeed, they are
often identical to film. I cannot usually say the same of my
Canons, except perhaps for portraits and other photography where
fine detail is less critical or where the prints are smallish.

I hope this post doesn't make you crazy by having you go back and
forth with your decision-making, but it's hard for me to read a
thread like this and just sit idly by. I agree that it's a
difficult camera, and I agree that service COULD become an issue.
But as Michael Caine says in the movie Weather Man,"Nothing that
could be called 'easy' ever enters into adult life."

Regards,

--
SteveG
http://www.pbase.com/smgarey
Click to expand...
--
Regards,
DaveMart

'Just a wildebeast on the plain of life'
Please see profile for equipment
 
David Martin said:
I found your post very interesting, and was wondering how you feel
about the output from the S3 - Fujista's ofen say it is more
filmic, presumably die to the wider DR and also the greater number
of bits leading to smoother tonal transitions.
Click to expand...
David: I have no hands-on experience with the Fuji S3 or its predecessors. I've heard good things about it and was tempted at one point to rent one and try it...but I opted for the Kodak SLR/c instead. No regrets...

--
SteveG
http://www.pbase.com/smgarey
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top