jean-luc Fornier
Member
As a professional photographer for 23 years and shooting digital since 2,5 years (I have started tests since 1993 but waited for the equipment to be more reliable before I did the final step with a DCS 560)
I have read many comments before I decided to walk into this forum.
I don't know how many of those who give their opinion are actually making a living from photography, but most of the comments seem very childish.
I I would like to give my views on digital photography, and the new products.
First of all, what is most important in photography is not the weight of the files, the noise(?!) and so on. What is really important is the global look of the picture, colours, tonal range, contrast, sharpness etc...
For example the D60 delivers 18Mbyte files, but as the imager is half the size of the D1s for example, the depth of fiel is much more important when using the same lenses, and it may give this "video" look, you know, when everything is in focus. Then comes noise... A digital camera delivers bitmap files, not vectorial. How does film react to light, how do you get different shades on a negative? Is this noise? I don't mind noise, it is not going to show on prints, and anyway less then grain on a film.
Productivity has to be considered when buying a digital camera. For example, the DCS 560 is a fine camera that delivers good raws. Those raws don't reach my standarts of quality, and it takes quite a lot of works and experience to get printable pictures out of them, and the process is very time consuming. I shoot about up to 800 frames a day, and editing is a real drag with the PhotoDesk, Image Acquire and so on... The D60 delivers better looking pictures, but Canon's software is an absolute waste of time. It takes so much time to preview pictures and to acquire them, that it makes a fine product absolutely incompatible with professional use. Let's hope some work has been done in this matter, otherwise the D1s with files almost twice bigger will not meet professional requirements either...
Then comes service... Let me tell you about my personnal experience in this matter: one day, I realised that my DCS 560 was out of focus and tried to get it repaired. Kodak litterally dumped me. It took 1 month before the camera was returned to me, with no better focus and much worse general condition (caps missing, screws marked, fingerprints on LCD, very, very dirty imager, a real shame. I had to return, and then it took again 3 months to get it repaired. Of course no replacement solution was proposed in the mean time, and thats why I had to buy the D60. Let's hope Kodak will give a better service for the 14n...
About the 14n versus the 1Ds, just one word: how the hell do you want to compare two camera when one does not even exists. Today, all Kodak can provide us about the 14n, is pictures of a pre-serie camera, and figures on paper. I am not saying that this will be a bad camera, I am sure that it will be an excellent one. I just find strange that Kodak releases the camera to the press before it even exists?!
Now my conclusion: I am sure that both DCS and EOS will be excellent, and that they will meet my quality requirements. The EOS body is state of the art, but the imager slightly bigger on the Kodak is probably a bit better, and should deliver crisper pictures than the Canon. The software delivered with the Kodak is going to be fast enought to make editing and aquisition a piece of cake, but we don't know much yet about how fast "Picture file utility" will be.
Then service has to be considered, and again let's hope Kodak will rethink its position: we are not just beta-tester, but professionals, and deserve a little bit more attention...
Anyway, it is going to be a very tough decision to make a choice, as both system has it's pros and cons...
After 17 years shooting with Nikon, I went to Canon because of their concern for professionals, and I don't know if the 14n will be good enough to go back to Nikon... So far, I have placed an order for the D1s!
I have read many comments before I decided to walk into this forum.
I don't know how many of those who give their opinion are actually making a living from photography, but most of the comments seem very childish.
I I would like to give my views on digital photography, and the new products.
First of all, what is most important in photography is not the weight of the files, the noise(?!) and so on. What is really important is the global look of the picture, colours, tonal range, contrast, sharpness etc...
For example the D60 delivers 18Mbyte files, but as the imager is half the size of the D1s for example, the depth of fiel is much more important when using the same lenses, and it may give this "video" look, you know, when everything is in focus. Then comes noise... A digital camera delivers bitmap files, not vectorial. How does film react to light, how do you get different shades on a negative? Is this noise? I don't mind noise, it is not going to show on prints, and anyway less then grain on a film.
Productivity has to be considered when buying a digital camera. For example, the DCS 560 is a fine camera that delivers good raws. Those raws don't reach my standarts of quality, and it takes quite a lot of works and experience to get printable pictures out of them, and the process is very time consuming. I shoot about up to 800 frames a day, and editing is a real drag with the PhotoDesk, Image Acquire and so on... The D60 delivers better looking pictures, but Canon's software is an absolute waste of time. It takes so much time to preview pictures and to acquire them, that it makes a fine product absolutely incompatible with professional use. Let's hope some work has been done in this matter, otherwise the D1s with files almost twice bigger will not meet professional requirements either...
Then comes service... Let me tell you about my personnal experience in this matter: one day, I realised that my DCS 560 was out of focus and tried to get it repaired. Kodak litterally dumped me. It took 1 month before the camera was returned to me, with no better focus and much worse general condition (caps missing, screws marked, fingerprints on LCD, very, very dirty imager, a real shame. I had to return, and then it took again 3 months to get it repaired. Of course no replacement solution was proposed in the mean time, and thats why I had to buy the D60. Let's hope Kodak will give a better service for the 14n...
About the 14n versus the 1Ds, just one word: how the hell do you want to compare two camera when one does not even exists. Today, all Kodak can provide us about the 14n, is pictures of a pre-serie camera, and figures on paper. I am not saying that this will be a bad camera, I am sure that it will be an excellent one. I just find strange that Kodak releases the camera to the press before it even exists?!
Now my conclusion: I am sure that both DCS and EOS will be excellent, and that they will meet my quality requirements. The EOS body is state of the art, but the imager slightly bigger on the Kodak is probably a bit better, and should deliver crisper pictures than the Canon. The software delivered with the Kodak is going to be fast enought to make editing and aquisition a piece of cake, but we don't know much yet about how fast "Picture file utility" will be.
Then service has to be considered, and again let's hope Kodak will rethink its position: we are not just beta-tester, but professionals, and deserve a little bit more attention...
Anyway, it is going to be a very tough decision to make a choice, as both system has it's pros and cons...
After 17 years shooting with Nikon, I went to Canon because of their concern for professionals, and I don't know if the 14n will be good enough to go back to Nikon... So far, I have placed an order for the D1s!
))
