Reading mode: Light Dark

Kodak 14n Hands On at PhotoPlus Expo

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peter Sills
  • Start date Start date
Go to last post
P

Peter Sills

Guest
Had a chance to get my hands on the 14n for a while at the show in NYC.

Excellent camera, but definitly more in the class of the D100, D60 and S2 than in the D1x/h or 1D/s camp. I've written a quick overview article about it, but that is really the bottom line.

Should be readily available by Feb. according to the people I spoke to, with a lucky few maybe getting them in Jan.
--
Peter Sills
Digital Focus
http://www.digitalfocus.net
 
Hi Peter, Thanks. I also went to the show and am one of those whome you say the 14N is aimed at. Yes, i would love the AF of the 1DS, but cannot justify it at its higher price.

That is probably the only failing I can see with the 14N for MYneeds, the AF COULD be better, but Kodak is aiming at a price point and went with the lessor AF. I can deal with that for now (NikonD2, where are you?).

Let's get some actual 14N's and see what they can really do. I too like the rotational file innovation and the ERI-JPG will be a great help.

Thanks for the link. It is a nice site. I've bookmarked it and will return after some sleep!
Best,
Robert
 
Peter Sills said:
Had a chance to get my hands on the 14n for a while at the show in
NYC.

Excellent camera, but definitly more in the class of the D100, D60
and S2 than in the D1x/h or 1D/s camp. I've written a quick
overview article about it, but that is really the bottom line.

Should be readily available by Feb. according to the people I spoke
to, with a lucky few maybe getting them in Jan.
--
Peter Sills
Digital Focus
http://www.digitalfocus.net
Click to expand...
Peter,

I could be wrong, but the brochure that I picked up at the show indicates that the 14n body is Magnesium-alloy enhanced, not plastic. (confirmed when I asked the Kodak guys at the show).

The lighter weight of the body, from my persepective, is a definite advantage. That's why I didn't buy the Canon 1D when it became available (I use Canon 35mm equipment), and prefer the D30/D60. It is also why I am having second thoughts about whether I want the 1Ds...it seems that it would just be too heavy for me to use comfortably for long periods of time.

I did fool around with the autofocus of the 14n, and felt that it was quite good (obviously very limited testing at the Kodak booth). I can relate my impression that the autofocus was better than the D30/D60, and seemed comparable to what I would expect on my EOS3. This is far from any controlled comparison...just my reaction.

The images at the Kodak booth from the 14n were large and impressive, but were viewed at a distance of several feet, and not under a lupe.

Overall, I was quite impressed with the Kodak offering, and believe that they could have a winner if the image quality is there when samples become available. Might even be tempted to cross to the "dark side".....

-Bob
 
The 14n has a Magnesium body cage infrastructure, and much of the externals are indeed plastic. This is one area where it looses some weight. This is similar to the D30/D60.

As for the 14n, it focuses fine on stationary targets, they all do. However, it tracks quite poorly, in fact poorer than the D100 I think. Also, I do not believe it has spot metering and the flash sync is far to slow to be of any use.

If the D30/D60, D100 or S2 is enough for you and you simply want more megapixels for larger prints, then it is a fine camera. It is not really comparable to the 1Ds. Nikon should have a D2 at PMA next year, that may be the first real competitor.

Peter
Bob R said:
Peter Sills said:
Had a chance to get my hands on the 14n for a while at the show in
NYC.

Excellent camera, but definitly more in the class of the D100, D60
and S2 than in the D1x/h or 1D/s camp. I've written a quick
overview article about it, but that is really the bottom line.

Should be readily available by Feb. according to the people I spoke
to, with a lucky few maybe getting them in Jan.
--
Peter Sills
Digital Focus
http://www.digitalfocus.net
Click to expand...
Peter,

I could be wrong, but the brochure that I picked up at the show
indicates that the 14n body is Magnesium-alloy enhanced, not
plastic. (confirmed when I asked the Kodak guys at the show).

The lighter weight of the body, from my persepective, is a definite
advantage. That's why I didn't buy the Canon 1D when it became
available (I use Canon 35mm equipment), and prefer the D30/D60. It
is also why I am having second thoughts about whether I want the
1Ds...it seems that it would just be too heavy for me to use
comfortably for long periods of time.

I did fool around with the autofocus of the 14n, and felt that it
was quite good (obviously very limited testing at the Kodak booth).
I can relate my impression that the autofocus was better than the
D30/D60, and seemed comparable to what I would expect on my EOS3.
This is far from any controlled comparison...just my reaction.

The images at the Kodak booth from the 14n were large and
impressive, but were viewed at a distance of several feet, and not
under a lupe.

Overall, I was quite impressed with the Kodak offering, and believe
that they could have a winner if the image quality is there when
samples become available. Might even be tempted to cross to the
"dark side".....

-Bob
Click to expand...
--
Peter Sills
Digital Focus
http://www.digitalfocus.net
 
Peter Sills said:
If the D30/D60, D100 or S2 is enough for you and you simply want
more megapixels for larger prints, then it is a fine camera. It is
not really comparable to the 1Ds. Nikon should have a D2 at PMA
next year, that may be the first real competitor.
Click to expand...
I would have to say that the D30/D60, D100 or S2 would be enough for 99% of all photographers...possible exception being a faster flash snyc. If you are a photojournalist, sports or war photographer, or someone who feels defined by the camera they use, then by all means go for the "pro" camera.

But remember that many people who are attracted to the 14n are coming into it from cameras like Hassleblad which has no autofocus at all, or Pentax 67 which has 1/30 second flash sync.

One last thing. I admire Canon cameras and don't want to disparage the 1Ds but I can turn your statement around and say it is not really comparable to the 14n for the following reasons.
Less resolution,
No automatic horizontal/vertical sensing
No backup card
No variable resolution RAW
No ERI JPEG
Bad Macintosh support.

Also what is the situation regarding the 1Ds and shooting software? Can you shoot tethered to a computer and get a full screen image almost immediately after the exposure. I could not find a reference to this but I would hope that the 1Ds offers this "professional" feature.

Rick
 
Hi,

Few points. True that the 1Ds is what one would call a full funtion Pro camera. Kodak are pretenting that what the 14n is but it has a few tricks up it's sleave for loads less money.
Peter Sills said:
The 14n has a Magnesium body cage infrastructure, and much of the
externals are indeed plastic. This is one area where it looses
some weight. This is similar to the D30/D60.
Click to expand...
Kodak compare it to the F5 case.
Member said:
As for the 14n, it focuses fine on stationary targets, they all do.
However, it tracks quite poorly, in fact poorer than the D100 I
think. Also, I do not believe it has spot metering and the flash
sync is far to slow to be of any use.
Click to expand...
Fast AF & Flash sync are moter feature a sports photographer would need. Not been to a wedding (Yet!) where this would be an issue. Of cousre it does have spot metering
Member said:
If the D30/D60, D100 or S2 is enough for you and you simply want
more megapixels for larger prints, then it is a fine camera. It is
not really comparable to the 1Ds. Nikon should have a D2 at PMA
next year, that may be the first real competitor.
Click to expand...
Kodak are talking about an EOS fit, if Canon can take the heat LOL!

The extra pix may not in it's self be a plus point, but if this means an AA filter is really not need and sharper pictures are pruduced then Kodak would have an edge for sure. Wait and See, I guess.
Alex
 
Peter Sills said:
The 14n has a Magnesium body cage infrastructure, and much of the
externals are indeed plastic. This is one area where it looses
some weight. This is similar to the D30/D60.

As for the 14n, it focuses fine on stationary targets, they all do.
However, it tracks quite poorly, in fact poorer than the D100 I
think. Also, I do not believe it has spot metering and the flash
sync is far to slow to be of any use.
Click to expand...
Nah, I have to disagree a bit here. 1/125 can be used for fill flash, it is just not up to contemporary standards. I shot with a Contax RTS II for years and the 1/60 sec sync rarely caused me problems. Of the problems which arose, 90% of them could have been cured in Photoshop if it had existed in my work flow. That said however, for many people used to blasting away at higher sync speeds, the 14n may cause you to use a bit more fineness with fill flash.

Or if as some suggest, the camera is at that point useless to you, use another camera. Different tools for differing purposes.

Kodak is stating that they feel this is a decent enough wedding camera. We are arguing about specs and how it has this fatal flaw. And "how could they......" If the specs on a camera make you frown, then buy a different camera. The 1Ds sure felt nice at the show.....and we all "know" Nikon are up to something, right?
Member said:
If the D30/D60, D100 or S2 is enough for you and you simply want
more megapixels for larger prints, then it is a fine camera. It is
not really comparable to the 1Ds. Nikon should have a D2 at PMA
next year, that may be the first real competitor.
Click to expand...
I do not think of them all as in competition so much as a larger hammer for this job, a lighter hammer for the job where I am going up the mountain, etc. No one camera is the right tool all the time. Have many, make the manufacturers wealthy and enjoy shooting.
Best,
Robert
 
Lets face one thing about the Pro14N.. It is a Wedding camera... I am was looking at a S2 and came close to buying one, but I was allways worried about have the correct exposure with digital.. That is very hard to do at a wedding... Black Tuxes and White Dressed :) Any fool and any good flash can hit the + - 2 F-stops mark.. The AF may be a little lower then the F5 UGH, but you can allways just kick it to F8 or F11 and get a hugh depth of feild to work with on manual... The 125 sync will cause problem in outdoor day wedding and events.. But I allready did the math, I will just have to goto ISO 100 and turn the flash up REAL HIGH... It is a workable solution.. even thou currently I shoot 500 sync and love it :)

PS... you can take a RAW from any camera is get more info out them... BUT Kodak added this to a jpeg.. Now I can get the best of both words and dont need to have 14mb files and 5 1gb cards :)
Robert P Miller said:
Peter Sills said:
The 14n has a Magnesium body cage infrastructure, and much of the
externals are indeed plastic. This is one area where it looses
some weight. This is similar to the D30/D60.

As for the 14n, it focuses fine on stationary targets, they all do.
However, it tracks quite poorly, in fact poorer than the D100 I
think. Also, I do not believe it has spot metering and the flash
sync is far to slow to be of any use.
Click to expand...
Nah, I have to disagree a bit here. 1/125 can be used for fill
flash, it is just not up to contemporary standards. I shot with a
Contax RTS II for years and the 1/60 sec sync rarely caused me
problems. Of the problems which arose, 90% of them could have been
cured in Photoshop if it had existed in my work flow. That said
however, for many people used to blasting away at higher sync
speeds, the 14n may cause you to use a bit more fineness with fill
flash.
Or if as some suggest, the camera is at that point useless to you,
use another camera. Different tools for differing purposes.
Kodak is stating that they feel this is a decent enough wedding
camera. We are arguing about specs and how it has this fatal flaw.
And "how could they......" If the specs on a camera make you frown,
then buy a different camera. The 1Ds sure felt nice at the
show.....and we all "know" Nikon are up to something, right?
Member said:
If the D30/D60, D100 or S2 is enough for you and you simply want
more megapixels for larger prints, then it is a fine camera. It is
not really comparable to the 1Ds. Nikon should have a D2 at PMA
next year, that may be the first real competitor.
Click to expand...
I do not think of them all as in competition so much as a larger
hammer for this job, a lighter hammer for the job where I am going
up the mountain, etc. No one camera is the right tool all the time.
Have many, make the manufacturers wealthy and enjoy shooting.
Best,
Robert
Click to expand...
 
Don't get me wrong. I think the Kodak 14n is a wonderful camera, and am very glad to see it premiere at this resolution and price point. It only means that prices will continue to decline and that those who buy the 1Ds today are in for a quick price decline over time - and as Nikon introduces the D2 at PMA. This is the nature of electronics and is going to be true for the Kodak's price erosion as well.

If the camera does what you want, and works as you wish, and you can get out of it the photos you want then it is what you need. No question. There are some tremendous photos coming out of D100s, S2s and D60s all over the place. That is not the question.

The issue is if the pricing of the 1Ds is warranted given the lower price point of the Kodak 14n, and I can tell you it surely is. The price of the Kodak is also warranted. Remember (as we tend to loose track of these things) $5,000 is still A LOT OF MONEY!!!

Peter
Masterdeath said:
PS... you can take a RAW from any camera is get more info out
them... BUT Kodak added this to a jpeg.. Now I can get the best of
both words and dont need to have 14mb files and 5 1gb cards :)
Robert P Miller said:
Peter Sills said:
The 14n has a Magnesium body cage infrastructure, and much of the
externals are indeed plastic. This is one area where it looses
some weight. This is similar to the D30/D60.

As for the 14n, it focuses fine on stationary targets, they all do.
However, it tracks quite poorly, in fact poorer than the D100 I
think. Also, I do not believe it has spot metering and the flash
sync is far to slow to be of any use.
Click to expand...
Nah, I have to disagree a bit here. 1/125 can be used for fill
flash, it is just not up to contemporary standards. I shot with a
Contax RTS II for years and the 1/60 sec sync rarely caused me
problems. Of the problems which arose, 90% of them could have been
cured in Photoshop if it had existed in my work flow. That said
however, for many people used to blasting away at higher sync
speeds, the 14n may cause you to use a bit more fineness with fill
flash.
Or if as some suggest, the camera is at that point useless to you,
use another camera. Different tools for differing purposes.
Kodak is stating that they feel this is a decent enough wedding
camera. We are arguing about specs and how it has this fatal flaw.
And "how could they......" If the specs on a camera make you frown,
then buy a different camera. The 1Ds sure felt nice at the
show.....and we all "know" Nikon are up to something, right?
Masterdeath said:
If the D30/D60, D100 or S2 is enough for you and you simply want
more megapixels for larger prints, then it is a fine camera. It is
not really comparable to the 1Ds. Nikon should have a D2 at PMA
next year, that may be the first real competitor.
Click to expand...
I do not think of them all as in competition so much as a larger
hammer for this job, a lighter hammer for the job where I am going
up the mountain, etc. No one camera is the right tool all the time.
Have many, make the manufacturers wealthy and enjoy shooting.
Best,
Robert
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Peter Sills
Digital Focus
http://www.digitalfocus.net
 
When it comes to the Kodak vs Canon 1Ds.. the camera is a better camera form what we know, but its also ALOT more.. you can allmost get 2 pro14n (one for a backup) for the price of the cam... If the Kodak image quality is on par with the canon, I think you can get away longer with the Kodak because it is 13.6 MP not 11mp... 11mp is not enough to lets say shoot everything square like the 14n.. And we also have the say the biggest difference is the ERI-JPEG.. I have used this feature on the 760 now and LOVE IT.. It can be a LIFE SAVER... esp when shooting something that is one shot...Even thought I love to have a better AF though.. :)
Peter Sills said:
If the camera does what you want, and works as you wish, and you
can get out of it the photos you want then it is what you need. No
question. There are some tremendous photos coming out of D100s,
S2s and D60s all over the place. That is not the question.

The issue is if the pricing of the 1Ds is warranted given the lower
price point of the Kodak 14n, and I can tell you it surely is. The
price of the Kodak is also warranted. Remember (as we tend to
loose track of these things) $5,000 is still A LOT OF MONEY!!!

Peter
Masterdeath said:
PS... you can take a RAW from any camera is get more info out
them... BUT Kodak added this to a jpeg.. Now I can get the best of
both words and dont need to have 14mb files and 5 1gb cards :)
Robert P Miller said:
Peter Sills said:
The 14n has a Magnesium body cage infrastructure, and much of the
externals are indeed plastic. This is one area where it looses
some weight. This is similar to the D30/D60.

As for the 14n, it focuses fine on stationary targets, they all do.
However, it tracks quite poorly, in fact poorer than the D100 I
think. Also, I do not believe it has spot metering and the flash
sync is far to slow to be of any use.
Click to expand...
Nah, I have to disagree a bit here. 1/125 can be used for fill
flash, it is just not up to contemporary standards. I shot with a
Contax RTS II for years and the 1/60 sec sync rarely caused me
problems. Of the problems which arose, 90% of them could have been
cured in Photoshop if it had existed in my work flow. That said
however, for many people used to blasting away at higher sync
speeds, the 14n may cause you to use a bit more fineness with fill
flash.
Or if as some suggest, the camera is at that point useless to you,
use another camera. Different tools for differing purposes.
Kodak is stating that they feel this is a decent enough wedding
camera. We are arguing about specs and how it has this fatal flaw.
And "how could they......" If the specs on a camera make you frown,
then buy a different camera. The 1Ds sure felt nice at the
show.....and we all "know" Nikon are up to something, right?
Member said:
If the D30/D60, D100 or S2 is enough for you and you simply want
more megapixels for larger prints, then it is a fine camera. It is
not really comparable to the 1Ds. Nikon should have a D2 at PMA
next year, that may be the first real competitor.
Click to expand...
I do not think of them all as in competition so much as a larger
hammer for this job, a lighter hammer for the job where I am going
up the mountain, etc. No one camera is the right tool all the time.
Have many, make the manufacturers wealthy and enjoy shooting.
Best,
Robert
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Peter Sills
Digital Focus
http://www.digitalfocus.net
Click to expand...
 
Actually, the pricing is the falicy in all of this. The Canon is only about 40% more than the Kodak. Agreed that is not a small amount, but based upon published selling prices, this is a reasonable amount given the differences in the camera.

I also agree that the Kodak has some nice innovative features (especially the orientation sensor and the ERI-JPEG mode - as well as variable RAW sizing). I expect however, that the photographer, in the end run, matters more than the camera though.

Peter
Masterdeath said:
Peter Sills said:
If the camera does what you want, and works as you wish, and you
can get out of it the photos you want then it is what you need. No
question. There are some tremendous photos coming out of D100s,
S2s and D60s all over the place. That is not the question.

The issue is if the pricing of the 1Ds is warranted given the lower
price point of the Kodak 14n, and I can tell you it surely is. The
price of the Kodak is also warranted. Remember (as we tend to
loose track of these things) $5,000 is still A LOT OF MONEY!!!

Peter
Masterdeath said:
PS... you can take a RAW from any camera is get more info out
them... BUT Kodak added this to a jpeg.. Now I can get the best of
both words and dont need to have 14mb files and 5 1gb cards :)
Robert P Miller said:
Peter Sills said:
The 14n has a Magnesium body cage infrastructure, and much of the
externals are indeed plastic. This is one area where it looses
some weight. This is similar to the D30/D60.

As for the 14n, it focuses fine on stationary targets, they all do.
However, it tracks quite poorly, in fact poorer than the D100 I
think. Also, I do not believe it has spot metering and the flash
sync is far to slow to be of any use.
Click to expand...
Nah, I have to disagree a bit here. 1/125 can be used for fill
flash, it is just not up to contemporary standards. I shot with a
Contax RTS II for years and the 1/60 sec sync rarely caused me
problems. Of the problems which arose, 90% of them could have been
cured in Photoshop if it had existed in my work flow. That said
however, for many people used to blasting away at higher sync
speeds, the 14n may cause you to use a bit more fineness with fill
flash.
Or if as some suggest, the camera is at that point useless to you,
use another camera. Different tools for differing purposes.
Kodak is stating that they feel this is a decent enough wedding
camera. We are arguing about specs and how it has this fatal flaw.
And "how could they......" If the specs on a camera make you frown,
then buy a different camera. The 1Ds sure felt nice at the
show.....and we all "know" Nikon are up to something, right?
Masterdeath said:
If the D30/D60, D100 or S2 is enough for you and you simply want
more megapixels for larger prints, then it is a fine camera. It is
not really comparable to the 1Ds. Nikon should have a D2 at PMA
next year, that may be the first real competitor.
Click to expand...
I do not think of them all as in competition so much as a larger
hammer for this job, a lighter hammer for the job where I am going
up the mountain, etc. No one camera is the right tool all the time.
Have many, make the manufacturers wealthy and enjoy shooting.
Best,
Robert
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Peter Sills
Digital Focus
http://www.digitalfocus.net
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Peter Sills
Digital Focus
http://www.digitalfocus.net
 
Isn't the Canon about 60% more?
MSRP on 14n is $4995
MSRP on 1Ds is $7995
Difference is 3000 which is 60% of $4995.

So to buy a 1Ds you pay 60% more than you did for the 14n.

Of course, each of these cameras will at some point sell below MSRP. 1Ds rumored at 7495 and 14n at 4700...so the % remains around 60%.
Peter Sills said:
Actually, the pricing is the falicy in all of this. The Canon is
only about 40% more than the Kodak. Agreed that is not a small
amount, but based upon published selling prices, this is a
reasonable amount given the differences in the camera.
Click to expand...
 
Surely the differences in the mechanical construction etc are worth no more than the difference between low end and high film bodies? The difference between a F80 and an F4 is what? 1/4 the difference between a 14n and a 1DS?
Peter Sills said:
Actually, the pricing is the falicy in all of this. The Canon is
only about 40% more than the Kodak. Agreed that is not a small
amount, but based upon published selling prices, this is a
reasonable amount given the differences in the camera.
Click to expand...
 
The reaons I am more for the Pro14N is that Kodak is aiming it more at the wedding biz... The Canon is more high end action.. etc... If you canon was the same price as the Pro14N is would still be hard since the canon does not have the exposure latt the 14N has as a jpeg file... What is the point of having a faster sync and better autofocus in the image is washed out or way to dark to correct..

As far as I know the Canon does RAW files that you can use the new PS plugin for RAWs... so if you dont mind needed extra cards then the Canon is a BETTER CHOICE...

We need to realize that the Kodak is in the Mid range between something like a D60 and a the new Ds... and the Kodak is priced in that range... I am really looking forward to using this cam in the real world (14N) I will say one good thing about Kodak... they have been making Digital cams for a long time (in digital years)
DMillier said:
Peter Sills said:
Actually, the pricing is the falicy in all of this. The Canon is
only about 40% more than the Kodak. Agreed that is not a small
amount, but based upon published selling prices, this is a
reasonable amount given the differences in the camera.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I have been looking at this camera as well. I am jumping into DSLR's headfirst and want to basically get a camera that will suit my needs (plus my wife will only let me blow this kind of cash on a camera once in my life). I need to shoot small, hurtling objects (my children) in a variety of lighting conditions, without spending a mint (more like a small S&L) on lenses.

Will this camera meet my needs? Should I wait for the Nikon offering at PMA (whenever that is)?

I will be attending a local photo show in South Florida and I hope to get my hands on a 14n to try out (Kodak told me that they are set to ship 2nd week of Dec.). If the autofocus is faster than my PDR-M70 and it takes good low-light photos, I will be happy.
Masterdeath said:
As far as I know the Canon does RAW files that you can use the new
PS plugin for RAWs... so if you dont mind needed extra cards then
the Canon is a BETTER CHOICE...

We need to realize that the Kodak is in the Mid range between
something like a D60 and a the new Ds... and the Kodak is priced
in that range... I am really looking forward to using this cam in
the real world (14N) I will say one good thing about Kodak...
they have been making Digital cams for a long time (in digital
years)
DMillier said:
Peter Sills said:
Actually, the pricing is the falicy in all of this. The Canon is
only about 40% more than the Kodak. Agreed that is not a small
amount, but based upon published selling prices, this is a
reasonable amount given the differences in the camera.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Carlos
 
Let's see: street for the 14n: $4,795
Street for the EOS 1Ds: $7,295

Difference: $2,500

$2,500 is 52% of the Kodak at $4,795. I guess we were both wrong. But the point is the same.

Peter
bfall said:
So to buy a 1Ds you pay 60% more than you did for the 14n.

Of course, each of these cameras will at some point sell below
MSRP. 1Ds rumored at 7495 and 14n at 4700...so the % remains
around 60%.
Peter Sills said:
Actually, the pricing is the falicy in all of this. The Canon is
only about 40% more than the Kodak. Agreed that is not a small
amount, but based upon published selling prices, this is a
reasonable amount given the differences in the camera.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Peter Sills
Digital Focus
http://www.digitalfocus.net
 
For your purposes why not consider the D100? It has a much wider ISO than the Kodak (so it's more versitile in a variety of lighting conditions outside of a studio) and shoots 3fps! Plus it's cheaper...
Carlos M. Echenique said:
Will this camera meet my needs? Should I wait for the Nikon
offering at PMA (whenever that is)?

I will be attending a local photo show in South Florida and I hope
to get my hands on a 14n to try out (Kodak told me that they are
set to ship 2nd week of Dec.). If the autofocus is faster than my
PDR-M70 and it takes good low-light photos, I will be happy.
Masterdeath said:
As far as I know the Canon does RAW files that you can use the new
PS plugin for RAWs... so if you dont mind needed extra cards then
the Canon is a BETTER CHOICE...

We need to realize that the Kodak is in the Mid range between
something like a D60 and a the new Ds... and the Kodak is priced
in that range... I am really looking forward to using this cam in
the real world (14N) I will say one good thing about Kodak...
they have been making Digital cams for a long time (in digital
years)
DMillier said:
Peter Sills said:
Actually, the pricing is the falicy in all of this. The Canon is
only about 40% more than the Kodak. Agreed that is not a small
amount, but based upon published selling prices, this is a
reasonable amount given the differences in the camera.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Carlos
Click to expand...
 
I had considered the D100 quite seriously, however I find the 14n's full-frame sensor and magnesium alloy frame appealing. Plus it takes Nikon lenses (as well) and can be upgraded (except for memory) entirely through software. According to a Kodak engineer, the unit is not based on the N80 (as many have speculated) but is custom designed by Nikon for Kodak. Kodak provides all service to the camera (unlike all previous DCS pro cameras). It has garnered enough attention to merit a serious look see. I eagerly await the local vendor's show in December.
Mark Palumbo said:
For your purposes why not consider the D100? It has a much wider
ISO than the Kodak (so it's more versitile in a variety of lighting
conditions outside of a studio) and shoots 3fps! Plus it's
cheaper...
Click to expand...
--
Carlos
 
Well for taking snaps of the family this is a very costly option. FF sensor & magnesium alloy frame really are not required. I would like at S2 or D60 which will far pass your needs. The S2 over the D100 due to better JPG output.
Alex
Carlos M. Echenique said:
Mark Palumbo said:
For your purposes why not consider the D100? It has a much wider
ISO than the Kodak (so it's more versitile in a variety of lighting
conditions outside of a studio) and shoots 3fps! Plus it's
cheaper...
Click to expand...
--
Carlos
Click to expand...
 
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