Reading mode: Light Dark

Unhappy with 14n

  • Thread starter Thread starter Greg Suvino
  • Start date Start date
Go to last post
G

Greg Suvino

Guest
I have been playing with the 14n for a little over a week now, and I have to say I am very frustrated with the one I have. I have been using the Nikon D1X for the past 26 months, and so far I am more impressed with it than the 14n. Granted the 14n has more resolution, but for me the image quality of the 14n, or at least this one, lacks something to be desired.

There is a problem using studio flash at 1/125, in which there is a significant falloff on the top of the image. The same image at 1/60 shows no falloff.

When using my Nikon 17-35mm f2.8 AFS lens at 17mm, there is significant falloff at the corners.

When photographing a point source of light, I get digital blooming. The same scene shot with the D1x produces a clean image without blooming.

Overall the images from this camera seem muddy and flat.

You can visit this page of my website to see samples of each item described. I have contacted, and sent Kodak samples. So far they have not been much help.

http://www.suvinophotography.com/14nsamples.html

Another issue is even with the AFS lenses, the 14n focuses extremely slowly as in comparison to the D1X.

At this point I am about ready to send this camera back, get my money back, and wait for Nikon to introduce the D2X.

Inputs welcomed as always.

--
http://www.suvinophotography.com
 
What firmware is in the camera?
Greg Suvino said:
I have been playing with the 14n for a little over a week now, and
I have to say I am very frustrated with the one I have. I have
been using the Nikon D1X for the past 26 months, and so far I am
more impressed with it than the 14n. Granted the 14n has more
resolution, but for me the image quality of the 14n, or at least
this one, lacks something to be desired.

There is a problem using studio flash at 1/125, in which there is a
significant falloff on the top of the image. The same image at
1/60 shows no falloff.

When using my Nikon 17-35mm f2.8 AFS lens at 17mm, there is
significant falloff at the corners.

When photographing a point source of light, I get digital blooming.
The same scene shot with the D1x produces a clean image without
blooming.

Overall the images from this camera seem muddy and flat.

You can visit this page of my website to see samples of each item
described. I have contacted, and sent Kodak samples. So far they
have not been much help.

http://www.suvinophotography.com/14nsamples.html

Another issue is even with the AFS lenses, the 14n focuses
extremely slowly as in comparison to the D1X.

At this point I am about ready to send this camera back, get my
money back, and wait for Nikon to introduce the D2X.

Inputs welcomed as always.

--
http://www.suvinophotography.com
Click to expand...
 
4.3.3
arrowphoto said:
Greg Suvino said:
I have been playing with the 14n for a little over a week now, and
I have to say I am very frustrated with the one I have. I have
been using the Nikon D1X for the past 26 months, and so far I am
more impressed with it than the 14n. Granted the 14n has more
resolution, but for me the image quality of the 14n, or at least
this one, lacks something to be desired.

There is a problem using studio flash at 1/125, in which there is a
significant falloff on the top of the image. The same image at
1/60 shows no falloff.

When using my Nikon 17-35mm f2.8 AFS lens at 17mm, there is
significant falloff at the corners.

When photographing a point source of light, I get digital blooming.
The same scene shot with the D1x produces a clean image without
blooming.

Overall the images from this camera seem muddy and flat.

You can visit this page of my website to see samples of each item
described. I have contacted, and sent Kodak samples. So far they
have not been much help.

http://www.suvinophotography.com/14nsamples.html

Another issue is even with the AFS lenses, the 14n focuses
extremely slowly as in comparison to the D1X.

At this point I am about ready to send this camera back, get my
money back, and wait for Nikon to introduce the D2X.

Inputs welcomed as always.

--
http://www.suvinophotography.com
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
http://www.suvinophotography.com
 
Member said:
Overall the images from this camera seem muddy and flat.
Click to expand...
Lots of things I can say about my 14n. Muddy and flat isn't one of them. What is your workflow? Using Raw, or jpg from camera?

I have seen some magenta blooming on very bright (specular hilights), but nothing like you're showing.

--
Rob
 
Typically, Kodak shots are a little flat until you do "Auto Contrast" or "Auto Levels" on them in PS.
Greg Suvino said:
rob762 said:
Member said:
Overall the images from this camera seem muddy and flat.
Click to expand...
Lots of things I can say about my 14n. Muddy and flat isn't one
of them. What is your workflow? Using Raw, or jpg from camera?

I have seen some magenta blooming on very bright (specular
hilights), but nothing like you're showing.

--
Rob
Click to expand...
--
http://www.suvinophotography.com
Click to expand...
 
Greg,

Michael Schoenfeld here,

I shoot speedos (speedotron, to you civilians), and have always shot @ 1/125....

By god your right!

Top frame fall off at 1/125 - not at 1/60. Not a biggie for me (I would suspect, by looking at your web site, and the type of subjects you shoot), and not for you. 1/60 is "fall-off" free.

btw Larry, I NEVER use Auto anything in Photoshop; I strongly suggest you learn to use
"curves", or "levels" at the very least; much better control for tone or color.

(and for heavens sake, do a "tonal adjustment" in LAB mode, on the "L" channel only)

All the best,

Michael Schoenfeld,

Michael Schoenfeld Studio
Salt Lake City, Utah USA
 
Michael,

I am using Speedo's too. I am glad to know that with the 1/125 issue, that I am not the only one. I can often times get away with 1/60, but for the money I paid it should sync at 1/125.

I am still playing around with different lenses. I just did some tests with the Nikon 80-200 f2.8 AFS lens, and the images looked much better.

I need to do more testing before I am completely satisfied.

Greg
Michael Schoenfeld said:
Greg,

Michael Schoenfeld here,

I shoot speedos (speedotron, to you civilians), and have always
shot @ 1/125....

By god your right!
Top frame fall off at 1/125 - not at 1/60. Not a biggie for me (I
would suspect, by looking at your web site, and the type of
subjects you shoot), and not for you. 1/60 is "fall-off" free.

btw Larry, I NEVER use Auto anything in Photoshop; I strongly
suggest you learn to use
"curves", or "levels" at the very least; much better control for
tone or color.

(and for heavens sake, do a "tonal adjustment" in LAB mode, on the
"L" channel only)

All the best,

Michael Schoenfeld,

Michael Schoenfeld Studio
Salt Lake City, Utah USA
Click to expand...
--
http://www.suvinophotography.com
 
Greg,

Michael here,

We should should compare our lens notes, because some lenses perform much better than others; I've heard that this is the same for both full frame cameras (1DS & 14n).

check this out:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/cameras/dcsPro14n/lensChart.jhtml?id=0.3.8.34.7.4.3.24.5.4&lc=en

I have 14mm, 16mm, 18mm, 20mm, 50 F1.4, 60mm macro, 135 DC, 300 F4, 20-35 2.8, 35-70 2.8, 24-85 F2.8-4, and 80-200 2.8. (all Nikon)

Let me (and the others here) know what you find; I'll do likewise first of the week.

All the best,

Michael Schoenfeld,

Michael Schoenfeld Studio
Salt Lake City, Utah USA
 
Good point Michael. I tried to do that on the images I have posted.

I am using the 17-35, 28-70, and the 80-200, all the AFS f2.8D models. So far the 17-35 has given the most problem.

As I tested the camera today, the best way I find I can get the best color is to do a session, and withing the session one image will be of my McBeth Color Chart. Instead of using the black on the card I have attached a piece of black velvet. I have found over the years this will give you a true black. I batch save them as tiff files using the Kodak Photo Desk software, without making any adjustments to the Raw files.

Then in photoshop I open the image with the chart, create a new action, and use the curves pallet to map out white, gray, and black. I then run a batch using the newly created action to apply the changes to all the tiff files.

So far that works pretty good. The colors look much better. I have attached an example on my 14n page.

http://www.suvinophotography.com/14nsamples.html

Kodak is still working on the sync problem.

Greg
Michael Schoenfeld said:
Greg,

Michael here,

We should should compare our lens notes, because some lenses
perform much better than others; I've heard that this is the same
for both full frame cameras (1DS & 14n).

check this out:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/cameras/dcsPro14n/lensChart.jhtml?id=0.3.8.34.7.4.3.24.5.4&lc=en

I have 14mm, 16mm, 18mm, 20mm, 50 F1.4, 60mm macro, 135 DC, 300
F4, 20-35 2.8, 35-70 2.8, 24-85 F2.8-4, and 80-200 2.8. (all Nikon)

Let me (and the others here) know what you find; I'll do likewise
first of the week.

All the best,

Michael Schoenfeld,

Michael Schoenfeld Studio
Salt Lake City, Utah USA
Click to expand...
--
http://www.suvinophotography.com
 
I think the "flat" images simply reflect Kodak's philosophy in trying to maximise dynamic range. It's like using a Hutcheson target to profile a scanner. Images look "flat" because of the very wide dynamic range you get with that target. You can of course adjust for this, as you are doing, but I have no doubt Kodak are right to leave the decision on how much to compress the range to the user.

So far as light fall off with the 17-35 is concerned - blame the lens. The D1x won't show it, as its not full frame.

I'd be very interested in your and Michael's finding on lens compatability with the 14n.

RIL
 
I purchased this camera for product work and fashion work. Both of which allow me to use the color chart method I discuss on my website. For my motorsports photography I will still use my D1x until my D2H comes in.

Having used a D1x for over two years, and using Nikon Capture to manipulate the raw files. I am spoiled by the simpicity of Capture, and its ability to control so many aspects of the raw image. Therefore I recognize the shortcomings of Kodaks Photo Desk software by not giving the photographer full control over the latitide of the raw files. I do like the ability the Photo Desk to be able to select all the images, or any number of them, and batch them all at once into Tiff files.

To get the most out of my Nikon Raw files, I use the color chart method for product and fashion, and use Nikons Capture's batch feature to adjust the curves, while I batch them into Tiff files or Jpeg files. With the 14n I will have to select all the raw files in a session with Photo Desk, batch them into Tiff files, then batch them again in photoshop using the curves pallet.

Hopefully, Kodak will develop software with the features of Nikon's Capture. Granted Capture is not free, but at least Nikon offers it.

Greg
rob762 said:
Greg Suvino said:
Good point Michael. I tried to do that on the images I have posted.

So far that works pretty good. The colors look much better. I
have attached an example on my 14n page.

http://www.suvinophotography.com/14nsamples.html

Kodak is still working on the sync problem.

Greg
Click to expand...
What look are you using? Product, event or ortrait? Good to hear
they're aware of the synch prob.

--
Rob
Click to expand...
--
http://www.suvinophotography.com
 
I tried the 14n myself and concluded it is a hopeless camera.....max iso 200 hashaha for 4000 USD - a joke..

There are too many basic engineering problems in the hardware - no way Kodak can fix it by software.

I wonder if Kodak has the guts to try further and bring a sucessor model. They must be working on it.

Soon the firmware updates will get less and less frequent and the 14n will die out.

Better sell it on ebay as long as you can still get a reasonabnle price for it.
Greg Suvino said:
Having used a D1x for over two years, and using Nikon Capture to
manipulate the raw files. I am spoiled by the simpicity of
Capture, and its ability to control so many aspects of the raw
image. Therefore I recognize the shortcomings of Kodaks Photo Desk
software by not giving the photographer full control over the
latitide of the raw files. I do like the ability the Photo Desk to
be able to select all the images, or any number of them, and batch
them all at once into Tiff files.

To get the most out of my Nikon Raw files, I use the color chart
method for product and fashion, and use Nikons Capture's batch
feature to adjust the curves, while I batch them into Tiff files or
Jpeg files. With the 14n I will have to select all the raw files
in a session with Photo Desk, batch them into Tiff files, then
batch them again in photoshop using the curves pallet.

Hopefully, Kodak will develop software with the features of Nikon's
Capture. Granted Capture is not free, but at least Nikon offers it.

Greg
rob762 said:
Greg Suvino said:
Good point Michael. I tried to do that on the images I have posted.

So far that works pretty good. The colors look much better. I
have attached an example on my 14n page.

http://www.suvinophotography.com/14nsamples.html

Kodak is still working on the sync problem.

Greg
Click to expand...
What look are you using? Product, event or ortrait? Good to hear
they're aware of the synch prob.

--
Rob
Click to expand...
--
http://www.suvinophotography.com
Click to expand...
 
Laupi:

I have a D1x for temporary use from a dear friend. I was thinking about seriously buying a 14 N this week. I thank you for saving me. You said the madic words "There are too many basic engineering problems in the hardware". That is so true. This is just like our cars. We are not very detailed oriented. I hope Kodak has the guts to come up with a new chip and new camera soon. USA is the world's capital for best software in the Universe. It's a shame that Kodak cannot compete with the elegance, usefulness and simplicity of Nikon Capture.

Einstien said it the best "Vision is more important than intelligence". Kodak lacks vision. Few motivated programmers can write something equal to or better than capture.

I thank you once again for saving me $ 4000.00. I will wait for a Nikon.

Thanks
laupi said:
There are too many basic engineering problems in the hardware - no
way Kodak can fix it by software.

I wonder if Kodak has the guts to try further and bring a sucessor
model. They must be working on it.

Soon the firmware updates will get less and less frequent and the
14n will die out.

Better sell it on ebay as long as you can still get a reasonabnle
price for it.
Greg Suvino said:
Having used a D1x for over two years, and using Nikon Capture to
manipulate the raw files. I am spoiled by the simpicity of
Capture, and its ability to control so many aspects of the raw
image. Therefore I recognize the shortcomings of Kodaks Photo Desk
software by not giving the photographer full control over the
latitide of the raw files. I do like the ability the Photo Desk to
be able to select all the images, or any number of them, and batch
them all at once into Tiff files.

To get the most out of my Nikon Raw files, I use the color chart
method for product and fashion, and use Nikons Capture's batch
feature to adjust the curves, while I batch them into Tiff files or
Jpeg files. With the 14n I will have to select all the raw files
in a session with Photo Desk, batch them into Tiff files, then
batch them again in photoshop using the curves pallet.

Hopefully, Kodak will develop software with the features of Nikon's
Capture. Granted Capture is not free, but at least Nikon offers it.

Greg
rob762 said:
Greg Suvino said:
Good point Michael. I tried to do that on the images I have posted.

So far that works pretty good. The colors look much better. I
have attached an example on my 14n page.

http://www.suvinophotography.com/14nsamples.html

Kodak is still working on the sync problem.

Greg
Click to expand...
What look are you using? Product, event or ortrait? Good to hear
they're aware of the synch prob.

--
Rob
Click to expand...
--
http://www.suvinophotography.com
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I too had been thinking about to 14n, I liked the idea of being able to use my good Nikon glass, 17-35, 28-70, and 70-200 VR, with a full-frame again. But after seeing examples like this I'm definitely waiting.

One point to make: a lot of comments are made that it is important to properly post-process 14n files to get good tone and range. When I had a D100 I might have agreed since pretty much every D100 file got help in Photoshop. But now that I have been shooting a D1X I notice that most files look great as is and only rarely need anything at all in PS. Maybe I'm spoiled by the D1X, but now I expect the camera to produce excellent results right out of camera and only require post-processing in special situations.
 
You're right, $4,000 is a joke. The camera is worth $6,000 at least.

This 14n bashing is yesterday's news. I used to bash it myself, but after trying one with the latest firmare, I bought one.

More and more users - myself included - find it and its software to be outstanding. Sure there are issues, as this thread makes clear, but they are not more serious that those affecting other cameras.

This thread raises important points, so don't let it degenerate in to a "my dads bigger than yours" slanging match. Its too tiresome...

RIL
laupi said:
I tried the 14n myself and concluded it is a hopeless
camera.....max iso 200 hashaha for 4000 USD - a joke..

There are too many basic engineering problems in the hardware - no
way Kodak can fix it by software.

I wonder if Kodak has the guts to try further and bring a sucessor
model. They must be working on it.

Soon the firmware updates will get less and less frequent and the
14n will die out.

Better sell it on ebay as long as you can still get a reasonabnle
price for it.
Click to expand...
 
If you have never used a Kodak system before, and have prior experience with Nikon or Canon equipment, you will be thrown at first.

Kodak's design approach is 180 degrees different with the 14n.

1) Use decent parts for the body, not the best, not the worst. Save money here to spend on electronics inside the body.

2) Go for the highest resolution possible for the price target, and make it a full frame coverage chip.

3) Set up the body for a wide tonal capture range to give up to 2 stops exposure correction in software after the shoot.

4) Make the body upgradeable through firmware.

5) No AA filter on the high res chip gives sharper shots. A software solution in PhotoDesk removes any resulting artifacts.

If you have a problem with this design approach, don't buy a 14n. You will need to learn a lot about PhotoDesk and PhotoShop to be successful with this capture system. A Nikon or Canon will do the thinking for you and generate pleasing jpg files. A 14n requires a bit of craftsmanship in the software use.

The payoff is incredible resolution high quality images as good as medium format drum scans, or at times even better. I've shot 5 billboards now with this camera since April.

If you take the time to learn the software, this camera will do one heck of a job for you.

Richard
 
I did not start this thread so folks could bash the 14n as some posts have started doing. This thread was to point out some problems with the camera, or maybe me as the user.

A point to remember is about digital cameras. These are computers, that can capture images.

In doing more tests with the 14n, and using my color chart method, I have been able to get some really nice images out of it. Good color and saturation. Resolution that runs circles around the D1x. Don't get me wrong, I love my D1x and it is a great camera for what I use it for, but 5.47 million pixels compared to 13.5 million is a no brainer.

Bottom line for me is, what did I buy the camera for? I bought it for use in the studio shooting product, and the studio and location shooting fashion/portraits. For both of these uses, by using the color chart method, I know I will be able to get the images and resolution I need for my clients. I have been doing this method for my commercial and fashion work for the past 2 years with the D1x and it works perfectly with it, as it seems to so far with the 14n.

This camera for myself as a professional has a specific use. I will buy the D2H to use for my motorsports coverage work for the fact it can shoot 8fps for 40 frames. I would not use the 14n to cover a race, nor would I use the D2H to shoot a full page jewelry ad. For the price of the 14n in comparison to other 35mm digital camera, you get a lot for the money.

Am I happy yet? Not completely, but I am feeling more hopeful that I can learn to use this camera to its full potential. When I first bought the D1X over 2 years ago, there was a learning curve I had to go through, in order to know how to get the most out of its images. The same will be true with the 14n.

Use this thread to help others be aware of known issues, as well as positive features of the 14n.

Greg Suvino
ResIpsaLoquitur said:
This 14n bashing is yesterday's news. I used to bash it myself,
but after trying one with the latest firmare, I bought one.

More and more users - myself included - find it and its software to
be outstanding. Sure there are issues, as this thread makes clear,
but they are not more serious that those affecting other cameras.

This thread raises important points, so don't let it degenerate in
to a "my dads bigger than yours" slanging match. Its too
tiresome...

RIL
laupi said:
I tried the 14n myself and concluded it is a hopeless
camera.....max iso 200 hashaha for 4000 USD - a joke..

There are too many basic engineering problems in the hardware - no
way Kodak can fix it by software.

I wonder if Kodak has the guts to try further and bring a sucessor
model. They must be working on it.

Soon the firmware updates will get less and less frequent and the
14n will die out.

Better sell it on ebay as long as you can still get a reasonabnle
price for it.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
http://www.suvinophotography.com
 
Hey gang,

Michael Schoenfeld here,

Richard's got the basics of this camera down; It's probably not for everyone (sorry Jay); the combination of a 14n AND a Fuji S2 or Nikon D1x is truly unbeatable in today's professional market.

One point I'd like to make for some who think they should wait for the next "thing":

I have made close to $40,000 PROFIT with the 14n since I started using it (5 months - that takes into account the $4700.00 I paid for it). If I only put one lens on it, and that lens is spectacular, I'm happy. As I said, It's probably not for everyone, but neither is a 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, 4x5, etc.....and all these are not "point and shoot", do everything cameras.

Why should I wait for something better, which, we both know, will come?

If I was just "having fun" with cameras (I do that, but they pay for my mortgage and my kids schooling), I might wait. But I have to pe profitable.

I knew (when announced) this would be a good business decision; Kodak rarely makes a dud, although they certainly fumbled the introduction of this device.

I stopped being emotional about camera bodies a very long time ago. I like nikon glass BECAUSE there are 3 companies competing for my money. As long as that happens, I believe I'll get the best box for the money.

When a better body comes, yes, I'll sell whichever camera is the least productive of the two, and move on; won't look back - Darwin - evolution - fish walking on land -apes with fire - I'll stop with the metaphors.

$4700.00 buys you one hell of a fine box, right now. But you need to know Photodesk to squeze everything out of it. 12 months ago, I couldn't have cared less about Photodesk; it's huge in my workflow now.....may or may not be in another 12 months - that's life; if your a working professional, you learn how to make fire, or you freeze; and yes, Canon's got game; but I've got Nikon, they've got plenty of game too, and I'm not going to drop 20K on new lenses every other year like some "photo-lemming" just because I can. Someone once said to me " it's called "Show-business", but the artists involved with it forget the second word". I like what I do way too much to forget the second word.

Oh, and I am not going to "bash" someone else's decision to buy Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Kodak, or any other box. If it gets you the image you want, It's all good.

Go take a picture and be creative; ten years from now you'll remember the picture and not the box you took it with.
  • Rant off -
All the best,

Michael Schoenfeld
 
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