Eos 1Ds, Kodak 14N, digital photography in general

jean-luc Fornier said:

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!

Click to expand...

zenmster said:

So you're actually saying that the 1ds is as good or better in
quality than a - uh....Hasselblad??

Click to expand...

Michael Long said:

zenmster said:

So you're actually saying that the 1ds is as good or better in
quality than a - uh....Hasselblad??

Click to expand...

Hassie's are, IMO, over-rated. They use good glass, but the basic
design (501, 503) hasn't changed in years -- make that decades.
Other people were introducing advanced metering and AF, and Hassie
countered by making their bodies available in colors. Wow!!!!

The only magic to a Hassie is the size of the neg it can produce.
And that is often reduced by cropping to a 4:3 or 2:3 format,
making it 6x4.5 instead of 6x6.

As to the quality of the "film", the 1DS is very, very, very close.

ML

(Opinion based on a few years using Nikon F3, F4, F5, Hasselblad
501 6x6, Mamiya RZ 6x7, Sinar 4x5 & 8x10, and Canon D30, D60, 1D,
1DS.)

Click to expand...

zenmster said:

THen that would make the Kodak 14n even closer at 13.8 mp (vs 11.4
for the Canon).

Click to expand...

Tom said:

jean-luc Fornier said:

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!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Tom said:

Kodak has in formed some dealers that it will also make a Canon
mount version (the 14C) The C is for Canon.
But....
They also said that they where making a 14N?????

Click to expand...

zenmster said:

z

Thomas Kachadurian said:

You know the answer to this question when you use one.

I am a cheapskate. I have been a professional for more than 10
years and I have never bought a "pro" body, just pro glass. After
all, the body just holds the film.

So trust me when I tell you I struggled with the $8,000.

Now I want a second one, even for $8,000. It is simply the best
camera I have ever owned, film or digital.

I hope the price will come down before I need another, but this
camera is so far ahead of everything else digital, and most things
film. Keep in mind this is a 35mm based body that will replace your
medium format hardware.

Wanna buy an Arca-Swiss?

Tom

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

bearcat said:

Tom said:

Kodak has in formed some dealers that it will also make a Canon
mount version (the 14C) The C is for Canon.
But....
They also said that they where making a 14N?????

Click to expand...

That's neat! Whether or not it's true, I have to ask, would it make
sense? It seems like it would. What would Kodak care about which
lens is used?

Click to expand...

jean-luc Fornier said:

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!

Click to expand...

Georg Herbet said:

Had the D1x: relatively little post-production work necessary.

Fuji S2 is currently best in this regard, I hear, which is why I'm
looking.

I have a 1DS. It's nice.

jean-luc Fornier said:

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!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

zenmster said:

Georg Herbet said:

Had the D1x: relatively little post-production work necessary.

Fuji S2 is currently best in this regard, I hear, which is why I'm
looking.

I have a 1DS. It's nice.

jean-luc Fornier said:

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!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

jean-luc Fornier said:

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.

Click to expand...

jean-luc Fornier said:

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...

Click to expand...

jean-luc Fornier said:

Canon's software is an absolute waste of time.

Click to expand...

jean-luc Fornier said:

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...

Click to expand...

jean-luc Fornier said:

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!

Click to expand...

jean-luc Fornier said:

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!

Click to expand...