1DsmkIII Kodak SLR/n

I have both, I also have an smkII that's away getting a new shutter.

First the usual disclaimer it isn't a scientific test, then again I don't take scientific pictures.

I was wanting to check the focus in flat light of the smkIII, I can't decide if the camera has a problem in that area or was just a victim of circumstances on a particular job.

So I fitted both Kodak and Canon with a 70-200mm f2:8 lens and shot from my bedroom window. The subject was some trees some distance away.

Focus was spot on for both (no tripod was used), I opened both in Photoshop first off at default. On first look I was shocked at the differences between the two images, the Kodak is much better to look at. I decided to shoot a lot more frames on both to get an average impression of what was going on. Just looking at the two frames would be a narrow view to say the least. I first thought the Kodak dug a lot deeper into the shadows, but no they are both very similar in that respect. Detail is slightly better on the smkIII and yes I mean slightly. There is more detail on the Canon image, but the Kodak does more with the detail it records.
What does that mean?

The Kodak "does light better" overall the Kodak image is not more contrasty between highlight and shadow, what it does do is give more definition within tones, the light looks to have a direction and leaves have a degree of luminosity on this very flat day. The Canon tones are very flat and it isn't a simple matter of upping contrast. The result is the Kodak has a 3D quality.

I have only done this in this one set of circumstances both machines set at 160iso.

I also know I could not go back to the Kodak because of many other issues the camera suffers from.

What I would say is if you have a Kodak and use it for fun and have the time to deal with it's issues on an image to image basis, stick with it, it still can produce images as good and better than the latest expensive toys on the market.

The further away you get from all the flack of the Kodaks initial reviews the better it looks as a camera in the world today let alone when it was released.

I have played around with the Canon file and I just can't get 3D feel no matter how many Photoshop hoops I jump through.
On a different day things might be different.
I will post examples later.

Kevin.

I'm starting to wish I had not been so quick to post the original post, I'm in great danger of disappearing up my own backside. Weather it's an AA filter thing and that's what I put money on. Dosing the Canon with some USM and what a difference, it now pulls away from the Kodak by quite some distance, 3D has been turned on.
I have proven a few of things here.
1, Leave the testing to those that now what they are doing.
2, Don't jump to conclusions
3, Don't go to print with them.
4, Yes the Kodak still holds it's own.
5, I stand a good chance of changing my mind again.
My respect to Phil and the team for doing a realy good job of testing.

Oh well back to work.

Kevin.

I was getting quite excited then - oh well, back to reality - I still like my kodaks even if they aren't perfect, in a way that is part of their charm........

Hi,

The Kodak DSLRs were way ahead of their time.... I wish they would/could have stuck with it, But alas money talks... LOL Nikon and Canon both benifited from Kodak..

Maybe they will come back out with a Pentax mount version that you can use all of the older lenses.. I know dreaming....

bluwing
--
No one is listening, Untill you make a mistake.

I have to admit, after using my 1DIIn for a year and a half or so, my interest in the new DsIII or even sII is really quite high. I find, that even though the camera is only 8mp, detail is really quite remarkable. Shooting with the 300 2.8 produces simply stunning images [it is the best lens I have ever used]. Excellent detail and wonderful color.

I don't know if you use LR or not, but what I've found is that LR has some excellent default settings for the Canon.
--
Rick

I've found life just doesn't fit in 1 camera or manufacturer vision.

I tried Photoshop CS3, I did not think it worked so well with the Canon, I much prefer the results from Aperture.

Back to the Kodak Canon thing, I am really a bit confused, areas of the Kodak do look better, there is a general more 3d look, then you look at other areas and the 1dsmkIII has so much detail you could pick a leaf off a tree.

I'm going to try this all again on another day, I'm making assumptions with very little information and giving knee-jerk opinions.

Kevin.

I see it primarily in outside portraits. When loading a set of wedding images into LR, because you see all the image [regardless of camera] on a grid, you can see the various camera images side by side. I can always see the Kodak images standing out.

Perhaps it is the lens. I don't know. But there is a lifelike look to the images that just 'pops' when you get the exposure right. My problem was that I never was any good at metering on the fly with the Kodak. I was ALWAYS over exposing everything.

I'd love to find a used sII in good shape at a good price. But, they are hold their own [from what I have seen] in price.
--
Rick

I've found life just doesn't fit in 1 camera or manufacturer vision.

I get 2450 lph (lines per picture height) shooting my trusty usaf 1951 chart (51 lpmm x 2 x 24 = 2448).

Pop photo gave the slr/n 2520 lph and the new 21 mp canon 2800 lph.

Methinks the Canon is slightly better, no surprise there. But the Kodak is still competitive ... if you respect its limitations and shoot at iso 160.

Lightroom also is a godsend to us Kodak shooters - I find that Lightroom does a much better job optimizing kodak raw files at its default settings than I could ever achieve with adobe camera raw.

--
Stephen Attaway
http://www.stephenattaway.com

Yes there is a more defined tonal range within the subject (well in these flat dull day mostly green ones there is), when I have shot more side by side in different conditions I'll get a better idea of each camera. Just looking at the thumbs in either CS3 or Aperture the Kodaks look the nicer.

Kevin.

I'm with you on LR. At this point, I would be completely lost without it. I cannot say that about any other RAW processor. Though I have read great things about Aperture, LR is simply worlds above the rest with respect to my workflow.
--
Rick

I've found life just doesn't fit in 1 camera or manufacturer vision.

Kodak images do seem to have more plasticity than my nikon digital captures, which seem a trifle 'flat' by comparison.

I suspect Kodak's designers tried to match the sensiometry of Vericolor iii when designing their full frame sensor. That would account for that indefinable 'pop' to portraits taken with the Kodak.
----

I'm surprised you have had over-exposure problems. My slr/n 'just works' - in contrast to my d80, where I have to incessently tweak the exposure when shooting in the very same light.

Perhaps you could check your Kodak against a known good meter and see if it needs some exposure compensation dialed in. They do seem to need some tlc to get the best out of them.

--
Stephen Attaway
http://www.stephenattaway.com

Outside or with studio strobes, the camera seems to over expose everything by .5-1.25 stops. The only time it meters correctly is when light levels are lower, such as shooting in the shade or on overcast days. But, if you put a strong light on the subject...it just over exposes. I use a Gossen Luna Star F meter.

My Canon has a remarkable meter, yet getting to know the flash end of metering is another story all together. The Nikon, is pretty good with both flash or daylight metering.

I believe it is simply my particular sample. Regardless, though, that and the moire I can get, in clothing, keeps it in my bag more than I'd like. I'd really like to get a better handle on the metering. But, after 4 years, I've given up a bit.

--
Rick

I've found life just doesn't fit in 1 camera or manufacturer vision.

Sounds like your matrix meter is kaput. Shouldn't be non-linear like that.

Have you tried centerweighted? Centerweighted should give repeatable results ... you can check it for linearity against your Gossen.

...or just use the Kodak with studio lights and hand held flashmeter. That is going to be my Kodak's retirement job, running on the dc adapter and tethered to a laptop.

--
Stephen Attaway
http://www.stephenattaway.com

attaway2 said:

Sounds like your matrix meter is kaput. Shouldn't be non-linear like
that.

Have you tried centerweighted? Centerweighted should give repeatable
results ... you can check it for linearity against your Gossen.

Click to expand...

Yes. On camera meter is very close. I believe its my sensor. Maybe that's why my high ISO images don't look as bad as others [ha ha]

attaway2 said:

...or just use the Kodak with studio lights and hand held flashmeter.
That is going to be my Kodak's retirement job, running on the dc
adapter and tethered to a laptop.

Click to expand...

Yep. This is where mine gets the most use. I love camera manager. Although, I believe my fire-wire cord is shot, as I had a lot of capture failures and program freezes on my last session. It has been flawless up to the last session [4 years].

No, I don't believe it to be the meter on camera. As written, even in the studio, it usually over exposes by at least 1/2 stop from what my light meter will read as well.

attaway2 said:

--
Stephen Attaway
http://www.stephenattaway.com

Click to expand...

--
Rick

I've found life just doesn't fit in 1 camera or manufacturer vision.

So, you used a Nikon 70-200 f2.8 on both the SLR/n and 1DsIII (with an adaptor), in order to use the same lens? And then you tried the Canon with a USM Canon lens, and that improved your results?

I'm trying to understand where things improved.

I assume he meant USM to be Unsharp Mask (a sharpening filter in Photoshop and other software).

neil poulsen said:

So, you used a Nikon 70-200 f2.8 on both the SLR/n and 1DsIII (with
an adaptor), in order to use the same lens? And then you tried the
Canon with a USM Canon lens, and that improved your results?

I'm trying to understand where things improved.

Click to expand...

neil poulsen said:

So, you used a Nikon 70-200 f2.8 on both the SLR/n and 1DsIII (with
an adaptor), in order to use the same lens? And then you tried the
Canon with a USM Canon lens, and that improved your results?

I'm trying to understand where things improved.

Click to expand...

No I have the Nikon 70-200m and the Canon 70 - 200mm. USM- unsharp mask.

Kevin.

I also have a Mark3 and a Kodak its hands down the Kodak has a better out of the camera look , some refer to as the kodak look, and they are right it is very nice but that said I unfortunately rarely use it any more as I haven't been doing very many landscape photos lately but soon. With potraits the kodak is a little to slow and I miss some very interesting shots so I end up using the Canon. Canon is just so quick and the files are very clean and easy to work with, I will be truly sad the day comes when the Kodak dies.
Good Luck and Enjoy

http://tric3imagery.exposuremanager.com/scripts/expman.pl?rm=overview_gallery&dir=galleries

--So let me understand this issue.............a Kodak SLRn valued at 1000k is standing up to a Canon Mark 31ds at 8k Us. Yes the Canon is better.........but I dont have clients that will really notice the difference nor pay me more money for the expensive Canon system.

Yes if I was a fashion photographer in NYC or London I would own the Canon or digitial back...........in the mean time the Kodak is fine......or until the new Canon 5d II shows up.

In the end its the photographer that presses the bottom that makes the shot........

http://www.stevebrownfoto.com
http://www.stevebrownstudios.com

You got that right Steve!

If you don't need the low light capability, or the speed, or the name, you can't get significantly better than the lowly, bad-mouthed Kodak. Gee, if only Kodak would have "stuck to their guns", (like they have done with" real film") they would have a significant market? They could have maybe even bought Minolta before Sony did, ;-) and had a camera & lens system instantly!

John Nollendorfs