PMA is over and no one's mentioned the obvious...

No FF cameras from any other maker. No Nikon, no Fuji, no Pentax or anything else. The Nikon Forum is busy with damage control. Everyone is trying to explain why half-frame is inherently superior to full-frame (and they're serious!). Doesn't appear that either of those companies are going FF any time soon. So it's Canon or Kodak. My order is still in (#1 at my dealer). I see what every one else sees in the samples, but staring at a 100% or 200% magnification on a CRT isn't a good representation of what will come off of a printer, and that's what counts. Seems that it's coming down to the wire. I'm not waiting for a 16MP Foveon-chipped camera (well yeah I am but not this year). Will Kodak deliver? Will the whining weenies take their complaints somewhere else? I doubt that some of them even own a camera of any type (110, APS anyone?). Only time will tell.

Wayne DeWitt said:

Everyone is trying to explain why half-frame is inherently superior
to full-frame (and they're serious!).

Click to expand...

Given the fact that all photographic lenses lose contrast and definition to some extent towards the edge of their image circle, something can be said for "cropping the cream" out of a lens' image circle.

Regards
Stefan

You sound like FF is the holy grail. It isn't. Without the limitations of a chemical sensor, film, the frame size loses meaning. It's a legacy standard. The currnent Nikon, Fuji etc cameras are "full frame" so far as their sensors are concerned.

If the new Nikkor 12-24mm delivers the goods, then I for one would be happy to stay with a 1.5 crop factor compared to film. It has some real advantages for telephoto work, and the 12-24mm Nikkor should solve the wide angle issue.

RIL

Wayne DeWitt said:

No FF cameras from any other maker. No Nikon, no Fuji, no Pentax or
anything else. The Nikon Forum is busy with damage control.
Everyone is trying to explain why half-frame is inherently superior
to full-frame (and they're serious!). Doesn't appear that either of
those companies are going FF any time soon. So it's Canon or Kodak.
My order is still in (#1 at my dealer). I see what every one else
sees in the samples, but staring at a 100% or 200% magnification on
a CRT isn't a good representation of what will come off of a
printer, and that's what counts. Seems that it's coming down to the
wire. I'm not waiting for a 16MP Foveon-chipped camera (well yeah I
am but not this year). Will Kodak deliver? Will the whining weenies
take their complaints somewhere else? I doubt that some of them
even own a camera of any type (110, APS anyone?). Only time will
tell.

Click to expand...

... some of which can be cured in the future (noise from small photosites) and some that cannot (diffraction limited resolution.) When we hit the second limit the ONLY way to go is with a larger chip.
KP

ResIpsaLoquitur said:

If the new Nikkor 12-24mm delivers the goods, then I for one would
be happy to stay with a 1.5 crop factor compared to film. It has
some real advantages for telephoto work, and the 12-24mm Nikkor
should solve the wide angle issue.

RIL

Wayne DeWitt said:

No FF cameras from any other maker. No Nikon, no Fuji, no Pentax or
anything else. The Nikon Forum is busy with damage control.
Everyone is trying to explain why half-frame is inherently superior
to full-frame (and they're serious!). Doesn't appear that either of
those companies are going FF any time soon. So it's Canon or Kodak.
My order is still in (#1 at my dealer). I see what every one else
sees in the samples, but staring at a 100% or 200% magnification on
a CRT isn't a good representation of what will come off of a
printer, and that's what counts. Seems that it's coming down to the
wire. I'm not waiting for a 16MP Foveon-chipped camera (well yeah I
am but not this year). Will Kodak deliver? Will the whining weenies
take their complaints somewhere else? I doubt that some of them
even own a camera of any type (110, APS anyone?). Only time will
tell.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--

29 lbs. of Canon stuff in a backpack that I carry everywhere. A closet full of things that are banned in Britain. A minivan and a Fender Stratocaster. A three bedroom ranch with three owls on an acre. An aversion to rumours. Also, absolutely no Canon 1200mm f/5.6. Yet.

I agree with that. But I don't think we are near the limit yet.

RIL

Ken Phillips said:

ResIpsaLoquitur said:

If the new Nikkor 12-24mm delivers the goods, then I for one would
be happy to stay with a 1.5 crop factor compared to film. It has
some real advantages for telephoto work, and the 12-24mm Nikkor
should solve the wide angle issue.

RIL

Wayne DeWitt said:

No FF cameras from any other maker. No Nikon, no Fuji, no Pentax or
anything else. The Nikon Forum is busy with damage control.
Everyone is trying to explain why half-frame is inherently superior
to full-frame (and they're serious!). Doesn't appear that either of
those companies are going FF any time soon. So it's Canon or Kodak.
My order is still in (#1 at my dealer). I see what every one else
sees in the samples, but staring at a 100% or 200% magnification on
a CRT isn't a good representation of what will come off of a
printer, and that's what counts. Seems that it's coming down to the
wire. I'm not waiting for a 16MP Foveon-chipped camera (well yeah I
am but not this year). Will Kodak deliver? Will the whining weenies
take their complaints somewhere else? I doubt that some of them
even own a camera of any type (110, APS anyone?). Only time will
tell.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
29 lbs. of Canon stuff in a backpack that I carry everywhere. A
closet full of things that are banned in Britain. A minivan and a
Fender Stratocaster. A three bedroom ranch with three owls on an
acre. An aversion to rumours. Also, absolutely no Canon 1200mm
f/5.6. Yet.

Click to expand...

I agree. What are the advantages of FF? The obvious that you get a FOV compatible with film and you use the entire lens output. With DX lenses thats no longer an issue and you get better performance with a crop factor that elliminates the lens outside frame problems.

The only possible legitimate concern is noise. With FF chip you can have larger photocites for a given megapixel size. Right now that is not a concern because camera noise doesn't appear to be limited by crop factor. The lowest noise cameras are the Fuji and D1x. The Kodak FF is by far the noisiest. So other then soom misplaced loyalty to the old film focal length I see no benefit. In fact the extra I get out of my telephotos is a real benefit. Another benefit is consistancy. I wouldn't mind if Nikon stayed with a 1.5 crop factor for ever. That way lenses and CCDs can be optimized over time. In 10 years everyone will know a 35 mm lens is normal and a 50mm lens is a short telephoto.

ResIpsaLoquitur said:

If the new Nikkor 12-24mm delivers the goods, then I for one would
be happy to stay with a 1.5 crop factor compared to film. It has
some real advantages for telephoto work, and the 12-24mm Nikkor
should solve the wide angle issue.

RIL

Wayne DeWitt said:

No FF cameras from any other maker. No Nikon, no Fuji, no Pentax or
anything else. The Nikon Forum is busy with damage control.
Everyone is trying to explain why half-frame is inherently superior
to full-frame (and they're serious!). Doesn't appear that either of
those companies are going FF any time soon. So it's Canon or Kodak.
My order is still in (#1 at my dealer). I see what every one else
sees in the samples, but staring at a 100% or 200% magnification on
a CRT isn't a good representation of what will come off of a
printer, and that's what counts. Seems that it's coming down to the
wire. I'm not waiting for a 16MP Foveon-chipped camera (well yeah I
am but not this year). Will Kodak deliver? Will the whining weenies
take their complaints somewhere else? I doubt that some of them
even own a camera of any type (110, APS anyone?). Only time will
tell.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Ken Eis

The real obvious is that Kodak seems to have probelms with this camera.

I had hoped that this would be a thousand times superior to film. Not for the obvious reason, as I doubt I would have bought it, but because it would help quiet the "digital is not there comments".

Now for the unknowing this will be another log for the fire.

Kodak is a good company and will probably fix it to some extent.

They probably should have gone with the AA filter and now have to find a way to work the alasing problems out with processing.

Best,

James Russell
Russell Rutherford

PMA is over and no one's mentioned the obvious...

Heck PMA is over and no one has mentioned the 14N!!

Hey, why not go for the middle??? I would like the wide angle of FF but love the depth and zoom I get from a 1.5.. Why not 1.25 or 1.3 (Kodak 760 and Canon 1D) Seems 1.3 would give you more wide angle, a little less depth of feild BUT would use less of the edge of the image, where the glass is not so great...

Masterdeath said:

Hey, why not go for the middle??? I would like the wide angle of
FF but love the depth and zoom I get from a 1.5.. Why not 1.25 or
1.3 (Kodak 760 and Canon 1D) Seems 1.3 would give you more wide
angle, a little less depth of feild BUT would use less of the edge
of the image, where the glass is not so great...

Click to expand...

I appreciate it Master D, but even the 1.3 wouldn't be able to give me 28-150+mm. I will always lose the wide end or all of the long end.

Thanks
Howard

I know... What I am saying is that it seems we have this battle over FF or 1.5.... FF has the wide advantage and 1.5 has more tele and more depth... Some people hate the massive depth of feild but I prefer it... I think what would solve a lot of problems would be if Nikon (or anyone who makes a good lens) would make a 16-56mm.. I think that the 35mm standard was mostly due to film issues... Larger film allways meant sharper images and grain issues.. I still think unless a GOOD 16-56 for 1.5 OR a 1.3 would solve SOME problems... I had to change from my 24-85 during a wedding because it was not wide enough... I had to go to a 17-35 and it was still close... I dont like having to change lenses so thats why a 1.3 or a wider 16-56 would be good..

Howard S Passman said:

Masterdeath said:

Hey, why not go for the middle??? I would like the wide angle of
FF but love the depth and zoom I get from a 1.5.. Why not 1.25 or
1.3 (Kodak 760 and Canon 1D) Seems 1.3 would give you more wide
angle, a little less depth of feild BUT would use less of the edge
of the image, where the glass is not so great...

Click to expand...

I appreciate it Master D, but even the 1.3 wouldn't be able to give
me 28-150+mm. I will always lose the wide end or all of the long
end.

Thanks
Howard

Click to expand...

Howard,

It seems to me that some photographers really should carry two cameras, a digital for regular shooting and a film for ultra-wideangle shooting.

You should expect MAJOR compromises in image quality with a 28-150mm zoom lens. Why don't you just put a 28mm lens on a simple 35mm, and use it one those occasions when that kind of wideangle is needed?

A good 28mm wideangle can not be found on a wide range zoom. Period. There is no argument that can be made there. If you are 'picky' enough to demand a 14MP sensor on your camera, I hope that you use the same 'picky' standards for your lenses, since they ultimately determine the quality of the image given to the sensor.

The clincher to me is this. Since you CAN NOT really get a prime wide range wideangle to tele zoom, that means that you need more than one lens. And changing lenses on a digital SLR in the field is a big NO-NO due to dust problems. You don't want to be cleaning the sensor outside while you are shooting your landscapes! You really need two cameras, each with a different range lens.

The obvious solution is to carry two cameras. A traditional film camera for your 28mm or wider shots, and a digital for your 'normal to tele' shots. That is what photographers have been doing for a long time, just that they have been using two 35mm cameras instead of one digital and one film.

Edward

Howard S Passman said:

I appreciate it Master D, but even the 1.3 wouldn't be able to give
me 28-150+mm. I will always lose the wide end or all of the long
end.

Thanks
Howard

Click to expand...

Edward Casati said:

You should expect MAJOR compromises in image quality with a
28-150mm zoom lens. Why don't you just put a 28mm lens on a simple
35mm, and use it one those occasions when that kind of wideangle is
needed?

A good 28mm wideangle can not be found on a wide range zoom.
Period. There is no argument that can be made there. If you are
'picky' enough to demand a 14MP sensor on your camera, I hope that
you use the same 'picky' standards for your lenses, since they
ultimately determine the quality of the image given to the sensor.

The clincher to me is this. Since you CAN NOT really get a prime
wide range wideangle to tele zoom, that means that you need more
than one lens. And changing lenses on a digital SLR in the field is
a big NO-NO due to dust problems. You don't want to be cleaning the
sensor outside while you are shooting your landscapes! You really
need two cameras, each with a different range lens.

The obvious solution is to carry two cameras. A traditional film
camera for your 28mm or wider shots, and a digital for your 'normal
to tele' shots. That is what photographers have been doing for a
long time, just that they have been using two 35mm cameras instead
of one digital and one film.

Edward

Howard S Passman said:

I appreciate it Master D, but even the 1.3 wouldn't be able to give
me 28-150+mm. I will always lose the wide end or all of the long
end.

Thanks
Howard

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Thanks Edward, Here's my reason. I am a bang around photographer. I'm not making my living with this, I just carry one all of the time where ever I am. It sits on my desk, the car floor, where ever. Cuurently when banging around I carry a 35-200 on my FA or I carry a Olympus E-10. Since I don't make my living with these things, and I'm usually doing something when I am carrying them, to have two cameras or a bunch of lenses hanging off of me would be prohibitive. If I am going out with the intention of shooting something specific then I will use my primes. I really don't need 14MP, but I need feel I need FF to be able to use the lens I want to use 90% of the time when I'm just banging around. I would be happy with 6 or 7MP but there aren't any FF cameras at that $ point.

The 14N would have been perfect, but who knows when that will happen. If Kodak said next year, well then I might buy something in between, but the fact they keep saying next month keeps me from doing that because I can't spend 2K now and 5K next year.

It's not the camera that's the problem for me, it's Kodak. As I said in another post, they are just like a junkie that keeps promising to quit. Frustrating!

Have a great day!
Howard

There is an advantage to FF which is rarely mentioned: smaller depth-of-field. You cannot fit say 20 MP onto a 5x5 mm sensor and get the same results as 20 MP on a 50x50 mm sensor by just changing the focal length.

Another issue: I still own and use an anolog camera, I am not going to buy a lens which will not work on that camera. Film is going to be less used, but it is not going to go away. If the Kodak is not what they promised, then I hope another FF Camera with Nikon mount will soon be available.
(Fuji S3 Pro?)

AdV

KenEis said:

The only possible legitimate concern is noise. With FF chip you can
have larger photocites for a given megapixel size. Right now that
is not a concern because camera noise doesn't appear to be limited
by crop factor. The lowest noise cameras are the Fuji and D1x. The
Kodak FF is by far the noisiest. So other then soom misplaced
loyalty to the old film focal length I see no benefit. In fact the
extra I get out of my telephotos is a real benefit. Another benefit
is consistancy. I wouldn't mind if Nikon stayed with a 1.5 crop
factor for ever. That way lenses and CCDs can be optimized over
time. In 10 years everyone will know a 35 mm lens is normal and a
50mm lens is a short telephoto.

ResIpsaLoquitur said:

If the new Nikkor 12-24mm delivers the goods, then I for one would
be happy to stay with a 1.5 crop factor compared to film. It has
some real advantages for telephoto work, and the 12-24mm Nikkor
should solve the wide angle issue.

RIL

Wayne DeWitt said:

No FF cameras from any other maker. No Nikon, no Fuji, no Pentax or
anything else. The Nikon Forum is busy with damage control.
Everyone is trying to explain why half-frame is inherently superior
to full-frame (and they're serious!). Doesn't appear that either of
those companies are going FF any time soon. So it's Canon or Kodak.
My order is still in (#1 at my dealer). I see what every one else
sees in the samples, but staring at a 100% or 200% magnification on
a CRT isn't a good representation of what will come off of a
printer, and that's what counts. Seems that it's coming down to the
wire. I'm not waiting for a 16MP Foveon-chipped camera (well yeah I
am but not this year). Will Kodak deliver? Will the whining weenies
take their complaints somewhere else? I doubt that some of them
even own a camera of any type (110, APS anyone?). Only time will
tell.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Ken Eis

Click to expand...

If you're not making a living at this, then why not have patience until some company produces what you need and want. There will be many more cameras & options in the next year or so I would think.

Howard S Passman said:

Edward Casati said:

You should expect MAJOR compromises in image quality with a
28-150mm zoom lens. Why don't you just put a 28mm lens on a simple
35mm, and use it one those occasions when that kind of wideangle is
needed?

A good 28mm wideangle can not be found on a wide range zoom.
Period. There is no argument that can be made there. If you are
'picky' enough to demand a 14MP sensor on your camera, I hope that
you use the same 'picky' standards for your lenses, since they
ultimately determine the quality of the image given to the sensor.

The clincher to me is this. Since you CAN NOT really get a prime
wide range wideangle to tele zoom, that means that you need more
than one lens. And changing lenses on a digital SLR in the field is
a big NO-NO due to dust problems. You don't want to be cleaning the
sensor outside while you are shooting your landscapes! You really
need two cameras, each with a different range lens.

The obvious solution is to carry two cameras. A traditional film
camera for your 28mm or wider shots, and a digital for your 'normal
to tele' shots. That is what photographers have been doing for a
long time, just that they have been using two 35mm cameras instead
of one digital and one film.

Edward

Howard S Passman said:

I appreciate it Master D, but even the 1.3 wouldn't be able to give
me 28-150+mm. I will always lose the wide end or all of the long
end.

Thanks
Howard

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Thanks Edward, Here's my reason. I am a bang around photographer.
I'm not making my living with this, I just carry one all of the
time where ever I am. It sits on my desk, the car floor, where
ever. Cuurently when banging around I carry a 35-200 on my FA or I
carry a Olympus E-10. Since I don't make my living with these
things, and I'm usually doing something when I am carrying them, to
have two cameras or a bunch of lenses hanging off of me would be
prohibitive. If I am going out with the intention of shooting
something specific then I will use my primes. I really don't need
14MP, but I need feel I need FF to be able to use the lens I want
to use 90% of the time when I'm just banging around. I would be
happy with 6 or 7MP but there aren't any FF cameras at that $ point.

The 14N would have been perfect, but who knows when that will
happen. If Kodak said next year, well then I might buy something
in between, but the fact they keep saying next month keeps me from
doing that because I can't spend 2K now and 5K next year.

It's not the camera that's the problem for me, it's Kodak. As I
said in another post, they are just like a junkie that keeps
promising to quit. Frustrating!

Have a great day!
Howard

Click to expand...

Another option is the Nikon 4000ED or 8000 film scanner. I'm out of digital now using film & scanning until the right camera comes along.

JerryKS said:

Howard S Passman said:

Edward Casati said:

You should expect MAJOR compromises in image quality with a
28-150mm zoom lens. Why don't you just put a 28mm lens on a simple
35mm, and use it one those occasions when that kind of wideangle is
needed?

A good 28mm wideangle can not be found on a wide range zoom.
Period. There is no argument that can be made there. If you are
'picky' enough to demand a 14MP sensor on your camera, I hope that
you use the same 'picky' standards for your lenses, since they
ultimately determine the quality of the image given to the sensor.

The clincher to me is this. Since you CAN NOT really get a prime
wide range wideangle to tele zoom, that means that you need more
than one lens. And changing lenses on a digital SLR in the field is
a big NO-NO due to dust problems. You don't want to be cleaning the
sensor outside while you are shooting your landscapes! You really
need two cameras, each with a different range lens.

The obvious solution is to carry two cameras. A traditional film
camera for your 28mm or wider shots, and a digital for your 'normal
to tele' shots. That is what photographers have been doing for a
long time, just that they have been using two 35mm cameras instead
of one digital and one film.

Edward

Howard S Passman said:

I appreciate it Master D, but even the 1.3 wouldn't be able to give
me 28-150+mm. I will always lose the wide end or all of the long
end.

Thanks
Howard

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Thanks Edward, Here's my reason. I am a bang around photographer.
I'm not making my living with this, I just carry one all of the
time where ever I am. It sits on my desk, the car floor, where
ever. Cuurently when banging around I carry a 35-200 on my FA or I
carry a Olympus E-10. Since I don't make my living with these
things, and I'm usually doing something when I am carrying them, to
have two cameras or a bunch of lenses hanging off of me would be
prohibitive. If I am going out with the intention of shooting
something specific then I will use my primes. I really don't need
14MP, but I need feel I need FF to be able to use the lens I want
to use 90% of the time when I'm just banging around. I would be
happy with 6 or 7MP but there aren't any FF cameras at that $ point.

The 14N would have been perfect, but who knows when that will
happen. If Kodak said next year, well then I might buy something
in between, but the fact they keep saying next month keeps me from
doing that because I can't spend 2K now and 5K next year.

It's not the camera that's the problem for me, it's Kodak. As I
said in another post, they are just like a junkie that keeps
promising to quit. Frustrating!

Have a great day!
Howard

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Scanning is very time-consuming. I can get the same results with a DCS 760 as I got scanning Provia 100F on a Nikon LS-40 (2900 dpi). The time required to handle a roll ofr film has dropped about 75%. Naturally, a 14n would be even better. Before I consider upgrading my 760 to a 14n, Kodak will need to get a stable product. My assessment is that might take until fall 2003. If so, the 14n may fall into end-of-year tax planning.

JerryKS said:

JerryKS said:

Howard S Passman said:

Edward Casati said:

You should expect MAJOR compromises in image quality with a
28-150mm zoom lens. Why don't you just put a 28mm lens on a simple
35mm, and use it one those occasions when that kind of wideangle is
needed?

A good 28mm wideangle can not be found on a wide range zoom.
Period. There is no argument that can be made there. If you are
'picky' enough to demand a 14MP sensor on your camera, I hope that
you use the same 'picky' standards for your lenses, since they
ultimately determine the quality of the image given to the sensor.

The clincher to me is this. Since you CAN NOT really get a prime
wide range wideangle to tele zoom, that means that you need more
than one lens. And changing lenses on a digital SLR in the field is
a big NO-NO due to dust problems. You don't want to be cleaning the
sensor outside while you are shooting your landscapes! You really
need two cameras, each with a different range lens.

The obvious solution is to carry two cameras. A traditional film
camera for your 28mm or wider shots, and a digital for your 'normal
to tele' shots. That is what photographers have been doing for a
long time, just that they have been using two 35mm cameras instead
of one digital and one film.

Edward

Howard S Passman said:

I appreciate it Master D, but even the 1.3 wouldn't be able to give
me 28-150+mm. I will always lose the wide end or all of the long
end.

Thanks
Howard

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Thanks Edward, Here's my reason. I am a bang around photographer.
I'm not making my living with this, I just carry one all of the
time where ever I am. It sits on my desk, the car floor, where
ever. Cuurently when banging around I carry a 35-200 on my FA or I
carry a Olympus E-10. Since I don't make my living with these
things, and I'm usually doing something when I am carrying them, to
have two cameras or a bunch of lenses hanging off of me would be
prohibitive. If I am going out with the intention of shooting
something specific then I will use my primes. I really don't need
14MP, but I need feel I need FF to be able to use the lens I want
to use 90% of the time when I'm just banging around. I would be
happy with 6 or 7MP but there aren't any FF cameras at that $ point.

The 14N would have been perfect, but who knows when that will
happen. If Kodak said next year, well then I might buy something
in between, but the fact they keep saying next month keeps me from
doing that because I can't spend 2K now and 5K next year.

It's not the camera that's the problem for me, it's Kodak. As I
said in another post, they are just like a junkie that keeps
promising to quit. Frustrating!

Have a great day!
Howard

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I agree it's time consuming, but especially for someone not making a living at photography, just scan the real keepers you want to enlarge and forget the rest. Howard wants FF and to use his lens as designed. That gives few options with digital. Buy the Canon 11 mp or wait to see what else shows up in the future and calm down until the 14N arrives in full production, read the full reviews, not this forum chatter and make a decision.

Larry Menzin said:

JerryKS said:

JerryKS said:

Howard S Passman said:

Edward Casati said:

You should expect MAJOR compromises in image quality with a
28-150mm zoom lens. Why don't you just put a 28mm lens on a simple
35mm, and use it one those occasions when that kind of wideangle is
needed?

A good 28mm wideangle can not be found on a wide range zoom.
Period. There is no argument that can be made there. If you are
'picky' enough to demand a 14MP sensor on your camera, I hope that
you use the same 'picky' standards for your lenses, since they
ultimately determine the quality of the image given to the sensor.

The clincher to me is this. Since you CAN NOT really get a prime
wide range wideangle to tele zoom, that means that you need more
than one lens. And changing lenses on a digital SLR in the field is
a big NO-NO due to dust problems. You don't want to be cleaning the
sensor outside while you are shooting your landscapes! You really
need two cameras, each with a different range lens.

The obvious solution is to carry two cameras. A traditional film
camera for your 28mm or wider shots, and a digital for your 'normal
to tele' shots. That is what photographers have been doing for a
long time, just that they have been using two 35mm cameras instead
of one digital and one film.

Edward

Howard S Passman said:

I appreciate it Master D, but even the 1.3 wouldn't be able to give
me 28-150+mm. I will always lose the wide end or all of the long
end.

Thanks
Howard

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Thanks Edward, Here's my reason. I am a bang around photographer.
I'm not making my living with this, I just carry one all of the
time where ever I am. It sits on my desk, the car floor, where
ever. Cuurently when banging around I carry a 35-200 on my FA or I
carry a Olympus E-10. Since I don't make my living with these
things, and I'm usually doing something when I am carrying them, to
have two cameras or a bunch of lenses hanging off of me would be
prohibitive. If I am going out with the intention of shooting
something specific then I will use my primes. I really don't need
14MP, but I need feel I need FF to be able to use the lens I want
to use 90% of the time when I'm just banging around. I would be
happy with 6 or 7MP but there aren't any FF cameras at that $ point.

The 14N would have been perfect, but who knows when that will
happen. If Kodak said next year, well then I might buy something
in between, but the fact they keep saying next month keeps me from
doing that because I can't spend 2K now and 5K next year.

It's not the camera that's the problem for me, it's Kodak. As I
said in another post, they are just like a junkie that keeps
promising to quit. Frustrating!

Have a great day!
Howard

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

JerryKS said:

If you're not making a living at this, then why not have patience
until some company produces what you need and want. There will be
many more cameras & options in the next year or so I would think.

Click to expand...

Hello Jerry,

Nope I'm not making my living at it, but I still enjoy doing it and doing it as best I can with the equipment I can afford and the time I have alloted. I get a lot of pleasure out of making a nice print if only for my family, friends and self. I was patient for a long time. Long enought for Kodak to add 30 days to the delivery date 4 times so far. Having patience in this case insinuates that the camera will be shipped. Historicall speaking, with this camera, a statement by the manufacturer on the shipping date is completely irrelevant.

To enjoy what I do I see a need for two things. FF so I can use my lens of choice (90% of the time) and a bit more resolution than I have now. Neither are available so I'm at the end of my growth until such time someone actually produces something similar to the 14N. I don't believe now that Kodak can before anyone else.

Scanning is w-a-a-a-a-y too slow.

Thanks for the thought though,

Have a good one,
Howard

Hope you find what you're looking for. Seem's like you're going to have to bite the bullet & buy the D1S I don't see any other options from what you've said & looking for. I guess you've tried the scanning then. I know it's a compromise, but it's full frame. Me I don't have every picture on a roll of film that's worth enlarging, unless you're doing portraits etc. so scanning the best ones is not that bad until the right camera comes along.

Howard S Passman said:

JerryKS said:

If you're not making a living at this, then why not have patience
until some company produces what you need and want. There will be
many more cameras & options in the next year or so I would think.

Click to expand...

Hello Jerry,

Nope I'm not making my living at it, but I still enjoy doing it and
doing it as best I can with the equipment I can afford and the time
I have alloted. I get a lot of pleasure out of making a nice print
if only for my family, friends and self. I was patient for a long
time. Long enought for Kodak to add 30 days to the delivery date 4
times so far. Having patience in this case insinuates that the
camera will be shipped. Historicall speaking, with this camera, a
statement by the manufacturer on the shipping date is completely
irrelevant.

To enjoy what I do I see a need for two things. FF so I can use my
lens of choice (90% of the time) and a bit more resolution than I
have now. Neither are available so I'm at the end of my growth
until such time someone actually produces something similar to the
14N. I don't believe now that Kodak can before anyone else.

Scanning is w-a-a-a-a-y too slow.

Thanks for the thought though,

Have a good one,
Howard

Click to expand...