Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: cerebros on March 23, 2003, 06:13:08 am
-
"chromatic aberration (though I am still convinced that this is almost entirely lens related, not sensor related), "
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what Michael has been saying, but I thought his point was that these sensors are showing up the chromatic aberration of the lens because they are utilising the light coming through the lens far more than film - i.e. the sensors are showing you something that is always there with these wide angle lenses, but that film can't pick up
-
It may well be that current and future firmware updates will produce a marked improvement. It still leaves me wondering why Kodak would release a model that, initially at least, fairs so badly in relation to its competitor.
One should also bear in mind that viewing an image on its own is not a comparison. I'm sure that Michael could take some fairly stunning shots with the 14n that he borrowed. With a bit of work in PS to reduce the noise, use of a good program to reduce aliasing, some selective sharpening and such prints might appear technically flawless and generally impressive.
The point as I see it, is one of value. The extra price of the 1Ds gives you a top of the range body and an expensive built-in AA filter. The 14n needs to produce images of 'at least' equal quality to the 1Ds, otherwise it's over-priced - even in relation to the generally unaffordable 1Ds.
I can find an argument that would suggest it's the Nikon lens that's letting the image down. This is where Michael's non-scientific approach to testing sometimes raises more questions than it answers. OTOH, Kodak's own samples of this camera featured on their web site, use a consumer grade lens (I believe - not sure) and none of the shots use a wider aperture than F11, last time I checked. I've never heard of a good quality 35mm lens that produces sharpest results at F11. I can only assume there was a good reason for this choice of lens and aperture. My cynical interpretation would be, the 14n is perhaps not capable of higher resolutions than a consumer grade lens can deliver at F11. Hope I'm wrong.
-
Michael's brief test comaring the 14n and the 1Ds demonstrates the amazing power of the Internet when used selflessly.
Ask yourself this: Having travelled across the continent and found yourself standing in the freezing dawn confronted with conditions like we've seen "East of Zion", which camera would you want in your hands?
Thank you, Michael, for this site and the integrity to use it for the good of photography.
-
Mark,
I have now updated the review to confirm that what we are seeing is colour aliasing.
Yes, I've seen it before, with every digital camera, but never to the extent seen under some situations with the 14n. The reason is, of course, the lack of any anti-aliasing filter in the camera. I have tried the software AA in Photo Desk and it seems unable to remove it in any real way.
It appears that Kodak's decision not to include an AA filter did allow them to keep the price down, but the cost to image quality appears to be significant.
Michael
-
Neil: I know several pros who recently discussed switching from Brand A to Brand B, but in the end, none of them did it. After making the final cost calculations, they simply felt that it was prohibitive.
(Whether to switch from Canon to Nikon, or vice versa)
You may be different, of course.
One good thing: high end equipment, in very good to excellent condition, brings high prices on E-bay. Especially if you have the boxes, manuals, cards, etc. etc. - buyers definitely pay extra for that.
Cheers!
Peter
-
This is bad in every sense for everyone. For Canon owner's this leaves them without competetion reducing the chances of lower prices. And for Nikon owners like me, I simply cannot wait for another year and half ( I have already waited since sept for the Kodak ) to go into the digital era. Many clients are requesting the digital workflow. That forces me to sell a lot of Nikon ED glass for whatever that sells for and invest in new Canon lenses which are costly and in a digital body ( probably go for the 10D and after it the 1Ds). I will be spending a lot more than what I counted on.
-
Come on Peter!
This is the second time that you've raised the specter of my prohibiting you from this Forum, with no provocation whatesoever on my part. What makes you think that I would even consider doing this?
I have no problem with dissenting views. Never have. In fact I welcome them, as long as they are intellegently presented.
Michael
-
Erik,
Well, I sort of agree with you there to a limited extent. But I'm getting the impression that you're trying to make every subjective opinion of equal value. You can then justify just about anything. Good becomes bad, pornography becomes fine art and the works of Shakespeare are no better than pulp fiction, depending on one's subjective opinion. Maybe you're right.
I think a better way of looking at this, is to say that we all have a certain expectation of the performance of a product, an expectation based upon reading reviews, word of mouth opinions and personal experience with other similar products. When those expectations are exceeded, we give the product top marks. When the expectations are merely met, the product might still be considered good and recommended. If the product falls below our expectations then we tend to give it the thumbs down. But you're right, if that's what you're saying, that peoples' expectations differ widely. Michael's expectations of camera performance is very high. There might well be quite a few people who already have a few Nikon lenses, who will buy the 14n, perhaps as their first digital camera, and will be thrilled to bits with its performance.
-
Just wanted to say thanks for the first 14n review side by side with the 1Ds.
I am looking forward to your next findings with the camera. I would like very much to see you include this camera at it's best, which is ISO 80. I know it isn't fair because the 1Ds does not have ISO 80, but this is where the 14n is supposed to be at it's best capabilities, so I would be eager to see and read what happens there too.
Peter Gregg
-
I think the resolution is there, but it is being smothered to keep noise down - and not very sucessfully either.
I get better - indeed excellent - results with the 12mp output from my S2.
Quentin
-
Send me an e-mail adress and I'll send you a crop from one of my RAW images made at ISO 100. A 4MB tif file, without compression.
I think you'll be pleasantly surprised at the image quality the Pro 14n can deliver.
Peter Burian
-
I second that last post. I'm grateful to know the facts.
-
To add a little 'balance' to the issue of the color artifacts in the
small branches of the test image from the 14n I can safely say
that I get the identical effect with my 1Ds under similar conditions,
i.e. fine detail such as silhouetted branches or wires against a very
light and contrasty background such as a sky.
It happens with the best of my lenses and with the worst,the only
difference is that the worst lenses add chromatic aberration into the
pot for a truly colorfull image!
It has been this exact characteristic that has really kept me from
fully embracing the 1Ds as my main tool.
I have had the opportunity to test,albeit briefly,a couple of other
1Ds bodies which appeared to exhibit the same characteristics.
A photographer acquaintance in Calgary ran similar tests and came
to the conclusion that his 1Ds body was relatively free of the artifacts
under similar conditions.
This would seem to suggest that there might be some variance in the
sensors from camera to camera.
Given that you have used your 1Ds in likely more situations than most
have,Michael,has this type of artifact made an appearance in any of
your images?
Thanks
Mark
-
Chip tech aside, the 14n doens't meed my needs as a professional. Neither does a D1x at either price point. I am the market targeted by kodak and so I don't know that either manufacturer has a clue.
In fact I'm planning on moving to canon over the next few months abandoning my Nikon glass, D100 and F5. In the current photography market speed and adaptability are key to gaining market share. Digital ability has cut my costs and improved my ability to deliver good images as clients request. If Canon is going to best help me then I have to make the best decision for my business - not wait around for manufacturers.
-
That forces me to sell a lot of Nikon ED glass for whatever that sells for and invest in new Canon lenses which are costly and in a digital body ( probably go for the 10D and after it the 1Ds). I will be spending a lot more than what I counted on.
Sergio:
If your current needs can be met with a 6 megapixel EOS 10D, would you not be just as satisfied with a Nikon D100 or D1x?
Do you really need to sell all your lenses, etc.?
Peter
-
Excuse me Peter but I have to ask, do you some kind of financial tie with Kodak, or do you just like to see how many posts you can make? I can't believe the great lengths you have gone to defend the 14n camera. Why don't you give the bandwidth a rest, and finish your (obviously positive) review of the camera, post it and move on. Your attitude is getting a bit old.
Thanks in advance.
Jeff: I am not "defending" anything nor do I have any ties to any manufacturer.
I am simply discussing approaches to testing and the publication of judgements and conclusions.
You may not have noticed, but many of my posts are simply responses to comments that have been addressed to me (often by Michael).
I cannot "post" my Preview of the Pro 14n because it is for publication in a print magazine.
REVISED - IF Michael prohibits my access to this Forum -- for airing a dissenting opinion -- I will move on.
Those who DO want to read various perspectives on the camera can also check others' comments -- and find sample images -- at http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/25354 (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/25354)
-
I am happy with a review that presents facts (as Michael R. has), presents the credentials, competence, goals and biases of the reviewer (as are certainly clear in the case of Michael R. by reading this site) and then progresses towards conclusions: the reader is then well equipped to judge the credibility of those conclusions. We are not in court; we not need to burden the text of every evaluative statement with disclaimers like "in my opinion" or "for my purposes".
P. S. If it were clearer how the 14n behaves at intermediate speeds like 100-200, which allow shutter speed and depth of field combinations comparable to ISO 400 or more in medium format due to the DOF effects of different image size and the availability of faster lenses for 35mm, I could decide better how its speed restrictions compare to what medium photographers are used to dealing with anyway, and judge if, at least for somone heavily invested in Nikon lenses, this camera has some small MF studio replacement niche. It is the now familiar economic argument: some Nikon based pros could easily amortize $5000 over the waiting time for the much called for better next model.
P. P. S. Is Nikon not willing to license any of its top professional quality camera body components to other DSLR makers any more? There must be a reason why neither Fuji nor Kodak matches even the F100 in non-digital features.
-
I will tomorrow, but remember than the difference between ISO 80 and ISO 100 is less than 1/3rd of a stop. Within the margin of error of even a good shutter.
Michael
-
I think to be fair, you should update the Kodak to the newest firmware, and shoot at ISO 80. As I recall there was some initial tweeking of some of the Canon digitals. BTW, on screen, (calibrated) the Kodak skin tone seemed more believable. I have a feeling that Kodak will continue to improve this camera with firmware releases, as they have for those that preceeded it. Many readers may not know that the firmware is easily updated from a file downloaded from the Kodak website. It only takes a couple of minutes, ... and it is free.
-
Noise troubles aside, has anyone noticed some of the up side of the 14N?
Exposure latitude and natural colors. As a negative film user, it seems to me that the Kodak is trying to make the 14N produce colors more like negative film with a little more room for overexposure. This camera may be less likely to blow highlights than the Canon.
Skin tones. The final shot of the man with glasses has, to my eyes, a much nicer verson of colors on the face. I'll bet that colors on the blue sweater and camera strap may be more realistic too.
As for resolution, the final crop of the man's eye shows a shocking failure to resolve detail. I really wonder if this is the lens. Mabe this test could be done with a simpler lens like a 50mm prime. And yes, the noise..........
-
Imaging Resource (USA) has published the first very long review of the Kodak Pro 14n. It's a preview really, because Firmware upgrades are proceeding, and they used early Firmware.
I don't agree with all of it, and I have some perspectives that they did not consider, but at least it's done with a logical approach.
See full text at http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/14N/14NP.HTM (http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/14N/14NP.HTM)
Peter Burian
-
Without wishing to be an S2 cheerleader, I wonder how much better the 14n will be in comparison to work like this:
http://www.pbase.com/image/14644768/original (http://www.pbase.com/image/14644768/original)
Taken with a Fuji S2 by talented fashion photographer James Russell.
Quentin
-
Image quailty asside, the other limitations of this camera make it totally unacceptable for anything but studio use. Max 1/4 of a second ? 10 second turn on ? Come on guys - I'm really not sure why people insist on flogging the dead horse. Firmware can make small changes, if there was a big improvement to be made it would have happened already.
-
Thanks, Peter.
-
Regarding the 14n's poor low light performance (ie can't shoot at high ASA and can't use long shutter speeds), video cameramen who have been shooting on chips for years have a saying:
"All cameras shoot great in the sunshine"
Peter
-
Peter - I cannot see the 14n being practical "for some outdoor nature, travel and landscape photography, in good light".
Good light does not equal 'lots of light' (which seems to be the real requirement here). Many of the most successful images are made at the edges of the day and involve long shutter speeds. Are you supposed to carry around 2 cameras: one for bright daylight and another for all the rest? I think most of us would just want to carry one camera.
This doesn't necessarily invalidate the camera for other uses, I just can't imagine any 'outdoor' photographer accepting the 14n limitations. (Full disclosure: I'm a contented 1Ds owner.)
cheers,
Eric
-
Peter,
Of course there are many successful landscape images with shorter shutter speeds. However, I know I wouldn't CHOOSE a camera for landscape work if I felt it had limitations at longer shutter speeds - there are just too many situations where this comes up.
If you were going to spend several hours hiking in to a location would you rather have a 1Ds or a 14n with you?
cheers,
Eric
-
The studio portaits on the Steve's Digicam's review are positively alarming. One needn't look very closely at the model's hair to spot the awful noise/c.a effect which appeared so acutely in Michael's test images (see next to her chin).
The lower portions of the model's hair are unacceptably 'muddy' and have that lovely "Memories of the Mavica" texture I hadn't enjoyed since the early 90s.
If these results prevail under optimum studio conditions . ...yikes.
-
And, Steve has arrived at essentially the same conclusions as I did. He has just been more polite about it.
Michael:
Steve's Digicams conducted very thorough testing, in a very wide range of conditions, before publishing any conclusions. http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/dcspro14n.html (http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/dcspro14n.html)
I'm sure they were tempted to be the FIRST to publish any Conclusions about the Pro 14n, but they resisted the temptation to publish before full testing was completed. (As did Imaging Resource http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1048477334.html (http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1048477334.html) )
Instead, they waited until they had a camera for several weeks, and were able to test it extensively. That is a logical, fair and balanced approach. My only complaint? They both used a pre-production camera.
DP Review has still not published a Review because (apparently) they feel it would be premature to do so, with a pre-production camera. And perhaps until they get another firmware update. (As far as I know, consumers cannot yet buy the Pro 14n; by the time they can, there will be even more advanced firmware.)
Most of our debate (primarily by E-mail) has been about approach and publication of strictly negative Conclusions based on very, very limited experience with the camera. Your Part I, as originally published, especially. Part II, after your second experience under different circumstances, is more balanced. <<< ... I'm ready to eat some crow. >>>
Part III, after your full, extensive testing of the Pro 14n, should be even more balanced.
And that has been my point all along as I wrote in a posting on March 23: <<< I refuse to make -- or publish -- powerful conclusions based on preliminary testing, with early Firmware, and based on very limited shooting and lighting situations. (With any camera.) Although I have made several hundred images with the PRO 14n, in various situations, I must write my "preview" without the benefit of even more advanced Firmware. Consequently, I refuse to do so with final conclusions and "absolutes". I refuse to take a "my mind is already made up" approach.>>>
Peter Burian
-
I have to disagree. Most reviews of cameras are positive because modern product design and manufacture is at this point in time (assuming a company is really trying) essentially perfect--meaning that most cameras are essentially good (I'm not talking about the 14n) and any failings noted in a review are merely the expression of the personal fetishes and preferences of the reviewer.
Erik,
Okay! So you're not talking about the 14n - just objecting generally to my comments. Fair enough!
I can only speak from my own impressions and experiences over the years, not just with cameras but hi fi equipment, computer components and all sorts of things.
I get the impression some magazines (and web sites), for example, will simply refuse to print a bad review because it only serves to antagonise the advertiser. Other reviewers will make polite criticisms cloaked in euphemisms, leaving the reader to 'read between the lines' as it were. Many reviews simply don't get to the guts of the matter and merely give an overview heavily dependent on the manufacturer's specs and brochures. Some reviews simple leave out the most critical information of all. (The number of reviews of flat bed scanners I've read that don't even mention the Dmax, is not funny.)
It's my impression (and after all it's only an impression, but I like to think based on some hard evidence) that many reviewers of products either don't have the financial independence to do a ruthlessly objective job or don't have the time and in-depth knowledge to properly evaluate the product.
Your notion that modern product design is essentially perfect, is (without wishing to cause offense) quite naive. (Okay! Buy you a beer some time). It's very easy to be dazzled by the bells and whistles and be distracted from the basic performance of the product.
-
Mike: Because of lossy compression (etc.) any JPEG image will have lower quality than a RAW image. I'm not sure what Steve was getting at, but ERI JPEG's do not seem to be of lower quality than regular JPEG's.
Of course, I have no idea how to test for that.
The big advantage of ERI JPEG's is wide dynamic range and exposure latitude. Using a Kodak provided Photoshop plug-in, you can extensively adjust exposure (about 2 EV of leeway) and color balance before converting the image to TIFF, or conventional JPEG. While maintaing excellent image quality. I was especially impressed with the ability to control exposure - much better results than most photographers would get in Photoshop with a conventional JPEG. (Perhaps advanced PS experts could do as well.?)
Steve's sample image: You know, a lot of people send me images as small JPEG's and most Web sites exhibit them as small (to medium size) JPEG's. I find it impossible or difficult to make quality judgements on such files.
What is the quality of the original file and how much has been lost due to compression or introduction of JPEG artifacts? And in a test, what settings were used in Photo Desk software re: Noise Reduction, Sharpening, etc? That can make a huge difference.
I would really prefer to see a TIFF: a small part of an image area so the file is not excessively large. That would allow for more accurate evaluation.
Cheers!
Peter Burian
-
Erik,
No matter how good you think a product is, there's always room for imrovement. Take the VCR as a case in point. Generally hopelessly complicated (or has been) for time recording, requiring the user to keep re-reading the manual unless they pre-record frequently. Lousy fidelity as compared with the original broadcast (only 250 lines horizontal resolution compared with 450 or so for live broadcasts - unless you have an SVHS machine which requires much more expensive tapes and still shows a noticeable loss in fidelity. The latest analogue VCR's, which are quite affordable, will probably be SVHS, have a Time Base Control built in and the ability to record 'almost' SVHS quality on a standard VHS tape. Definitely an improvement but now obsolete as a result of the introduction of DVD recorders.
It's the same with all products. I've never come across a perfect product - which is not quite the same as saying a particular product might be ideal for the job at a particular point in time.
Take the case of Epson printers. The 1200 was the first desktop printer that some people claimed could rival the quality of wet darkroom prints. A mature product? Not on your life. Hopelessly non-archival inks and papers, inability to reproduce certain hues visible on the monitor and a very clumsy roller feed system. The 1290 which I currently use, has a slightly less clumsy roller feed system. At least the roller attachment comes with the printer as well as a plastic sleeve to facilitate rolling the paper in the opposite direction, which seems to be a necessary rigmarole if you want the paper to feed.
I could go on, but I'd be digressing from the subject of the thread.
-
>>It's the same with all products. I've never come across a perfect product - which is not quite the same as saying a particular product might be ideal for the job at a particular point in time.<<
Ray,
You've made my point better than I trying to do. If I like the non-archival inks in the 1200 then it's perfect for me. If you don't then it's not perfect for you. It's okay to describe the 1200 (in a review) as not having archival inks (or any other measurable characteristic)--that's objective. But it's subjective to say that that characteristic(s) then makes it a good or a bad printer. The product only becomes good or bad based upon the needs of the user.
-
>>But you're right, if that's what you're saying, that peoples' expectations differ widely<<
Ray,
That's exactly what I was trying to say. All of our expectations differ widley.
-
Peter,
Macintoshes (and Netscape) are forbidden to read that "MS software only" site
FWIW, I am also on a Mac (OS X using IE 5.2) and had no problems accessing the MSN site. I do have an MSN account - for hotmail etc - which may explain this. As an experiment I tried using Apple's Safari browser, and did get knocked back.
-
Hi Michael,
thank you for the report.
The Canon D1s images seem indeed to be sharper. But, do they really carry more detail? If you blow them up you see that the Canon accentuates contrasting areas by dark or even black lines.
You can apply a similar effect to the Kodak pictures by adding a second layer with black stylized edges (blending 'multiply', low opacity). To me - as far as sharpness is concerned - they have the upper hand after that procedure.
Or do the old short-sighted eyes fool me?
Andreas
-
Michael,
Thank you very much for your comparison of the 14n and 1Ds.
Oddly, the 1Ds images looked worse than I've come to expect from mine, but there are so many variables that it is hard to make a firm statement about that. Even so, the 14n appeared to my eyes considerably worse in most every way: noise, resolution, color accuracy, dynamic range, chromatic aberration (though I am still convinced that this is almost entirely lens related, not sensor related), odd digital artifacts, etc. Further, I'm wondering whether the testing procedure went easy on the 14n; I wonder whether differences would have been greater if the 1Ds had had its mirror locked (nor an option on the 14n, apparently), and if both cameras had prime lenses to reveal as much as possible. On the other hand, perhaps, somehow, the 14n just needs to work out the kinks, and/or perhaps there was some hidden way in which the 14n was handicapped. If the 1Ds samples looked oddly off to me, perhaps the same could have been true to an even greater degree with the 14n. But I don't think so; I have fair confidence in Michael's competence at testing. I'm just trying to give the 14n the benefit of the doubt.
I guess it's too early to say, either way, but I can't deny that I came away from reading the review with definite conclusions about what I saw.
I'm sure glad that I got the 1Ds, instead of the 14n. I really did want the 14n to be good, though. I wanted a good Nikon family camera to drive down the price of the 1Ds, so that I could buy a second one for less than I paid for the first. Also, even though I've switched to Canon (and I'm liking the Canon side better, so far), I haven't sworn off Nikon forever. I still prefer the Nikon ergonomics. I even kept my favorite Nikon lens.
I'm no expert in the matter, but, it doesn't seem to me that there is much that 14n firmware updates will be able to do to improve the output of an intrinsically noisy sensor. Is there something more to be done than somehow make the noise-reduction algorithms a little less artificial looking?
--Mike
P.S. Michael, you were right! Now that I am running my own photography forum on photo.net, I see that people really are a lot more interested and responsive to articles about gear than to articles about doing photography.
-
I am looking forward to your next findings with the camera. I would like very much to see you include this camera at it's best, which is ISO 80. CLIPPED
Peter Gregg
I have a sample of the Pro 14n too, including newer Firmware, and have made some images of absolutely stunning quality. Completely free of artifacts or noise, and as sharp as I want: sharpness is easily adjusted in the RAW image converter software.
The weather has been terrible -- I am also in Toronto, Canada -- so I still need to do a lot more shooting, but so far, I'm impressed with the image quality potential of the Pro 14n. Like any camera, it has pros and cons, but I'm not ready yet to publish conclusions.
Suffice to say, we all need to do more shooting with a Pro 14n. Also, Firmware upgrades are still continuing. That's one reason why other Digital magazines on the Web have not posted test reports.
Personally, I cannot make final decisions on this camera's pros and cons because I have not been able to complete full testing, using even more advanced firmware, in more types of shooting situations, in order to produce conclusions with truly valid results.
Peter Burian
-
The Pro 14n that I am testing, produced excellent image quality at low ISO, particularly in sunny, and in cloudy/bright light. Others indicate similar performance under studio lighting. See http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/25354 (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/25354)
At high ISO -- particulary in low light and in deep shade -- the Pro 14n does not produce optimum image quality. It will be interesting to see Michael's evaluation after he uses a Pro 14n at lower ISO, and in brighter lighting conditions.
It does take some practice to determine the most appropriate settings in the RAW converter software for Noise Reduction and Sharpness. For low ISO images, the default setting for NR is too high. Sharpness is fully adjustable, as in Photoshop OR in the PhaseOne software that Michael used on the EOS 1Ds images.
PhaseOne produces higher image quality than the Canon RAW software. For a comparison test, I feel that the manufacturer's software should be used for both cameras. Not a superior aftermarket software for one of the cameras. (At this time, PhaseOne software does not support Kodak RAW files.)
I evaluate image quality before applying Photoshop, and after. <b>I never use any other software when evaluating any camera.</b>
<<< The 14n needs to produce images of 'at least' equal quality to the 1Ds, otherwise it's over-priced - even in relation to the generally unaffordable 1Ds.>>>
I really do not understand the logic of that comment. re: a $5000.US camera vs. a $7500.US camera.
<<<It may well be that current and future firmware updates will produce a marked improvement. It still leaves me wondering why Kodak would release a model that, initially at least, fairs so badly in relation to its competitor.>>>
I don't know that Kodak has shipped anything but dealer samples so far. The third version of the firmware is ready now (I used that yesterday) and development work continues.
Peter Burian
-
Michael: We have exchanged very frank E-mails and discussed our views of our differing approaches. I don't think we need to air ALL that on a forum.
I did not say your approach was "not logical". I should have said that "Imaging Review tested the camera in a wide range of circumstances and lighting conditions. I do consider that to be a logical approach and one that I also try to take."
Even if they did only test the camera with the very early version of the Kodak Firmware. Today, I am using the third version for some testing. A much higher/more advanced version may be in cameras that people actually buy. And upgrades will be posted on the Kodak Web site for a simple/quick download.
Also, Imaging Resource used Canon and Kodak RAW software, not an aftermarket software for one camera, and not the other. Again, a logical approach.
Having said that, I disagree with some of Imaging Resource's perspectives on the Pro 14n, as I detailed in an e-mail to you (and to Imaging Resource). And their omission of important points, like the value of the ERI JPEG format.
My "preview report" of the Pro 14n will include the pros and cons of the camera, and also discuss its target market. I don't see the Pro 14n as an all-purpose, do-everything camera.
According to the Kodak press releases, it targets studio, portrait, wedding and event (like PR shots, taken with flash) photographers. Not action or news photographers; not "available light" fans; etc. I suppose that Kodak is surprised at the level of interest expressed by photo enthusiasts who expect a "do-everything" camera like a Nikon F5.
I refuse to make -- or publish -- powerful conclusions based on preliminary testing, with early Firmware, and based on very limited shooting and lighting situations. (With any camera.) Although I have made several hundred images with the PRO 14n, in various situations, I must write my "preview" without the benefit of even more advanced Firmware. Consequently, I refuse to do so with final conclusions and "absolutes". I refuse to take a "my mind is already made up" approach.
I don't know that "the King is naked", Michael. I do know that I have made some images with the Pro 14n that are absolutely stunning in all aspects of image quality. And that this camera has pro's and con's.
So for now, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
Cheers!
Peter
-
Michael,
I don't know whether that "pundit" comment in your review was referring to me, in regard to my comment above that I'm still convinced that chromatic aberration is mainly lens related. If you are, let me say two things:
1) I haven't called myself a pundit, I don't think of myself as a pundit, and I don't believe I've acted like one. I've simply been a participant in a discussion, sharing my experience and understanding, and seeking the truth of the matter.
2) Your second part of the review did make a convincing case that the CA was due to the imaging chip and not the lens, in the case of the 14n. So, let me rephrase my original comment this way: the chromatic aberration I've seen with wide angles with my 1Ds is similar (a little more exaggerated) to what I've come to expect to see on film with wide angle lenses.
Thank you for your review. Numerous aspects of the 14n (poor slow shutter speed performance, no mirror lock-up, less than 100% viewfinder coverage, questionable weather resistance, etc.) make this camera plainly inappropriate for my use. I doubt that it will be considered substantial competition to the 1Ds by many. This is unfortunate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter, first you mention the value of the ERI-JPEG, then a few sentences later, you say that this is camera is targeted for studio and portrait photographers, not available light photographers. (By the way, am I remembering incorrectly that Kodak was also originally marketing this as a landscape shooter?)
Those seem contradictory to me. Why would a studio photographer, using controlled lighting, ever be wildly missing his/her exposures, and therefore be needing the ERI-JPEG?
Frankly, I don't see much value in the ERI-JPEG, at all. I'm strictly an available light nature photographer, usually spotmetering and manually setting aperture and shutter speed, and I can't remember the last time that I've missed my exposure by a stop. (Autoexposure works darn well, too.) It's a very, very rare occurrence, if it ever happens at all. I'm guessing that the same is true for practically all the people who spend $5,000 or more on cameras.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the value of the ERI-JPEG. Please feel welcome to elaborate.
--Mike
-
With regard to the color artifacts in the tree... I've been trying to figure out for myself if you're looking at a lens artifact that's being picked up by the high-resolution sensor, or something else. I'm leaning towards the latter, but open to arguments, let me tell folks why.
I actually use tools to correct chromatic aberration in lenses on a regular basis. It's painful, and it's no substitute for a better lens, but it lens-based chromatic aberration tends to leave a fingerprint--near the corners, the color fringes tend to appear consistently one color in the 'towards center' direction of the edges of large objects (such as your branches), the opposite color on the other side. The reasons for this are presumably obvious after a bit of introspection.
Now, I'm looking at your 100% crop on my laptop here, and maybe I just can't see the details here. But I'm not seeing fringing along the big branches, I'm instead seeing the color artifacts mostly along the very tiny branches. This kinda smells to me like some sort of color aliasing from the thin branch lines interacting with the sensors Bayer (Beyer?) pattern sensor, perhaps enhanced by the required processing necessary to put color informaton back into the picture--no matter how "raw" your image is, if it's a full-resolution RGB image it isn't truely raw--the image is showing a Bayer pattern reconstruction.
I had a third thought, which is that colors may 'bloom' on the sensors differently at different colors. I notice that the tree appears to have picked up an overall red cast in the details. If you saw red (say) fringes on all sides of big branches, and red coloration on tiny thin branches, I might imagine that somehow that red light was somehow activating nearby pixels in the sensor more than blue light was (some sort of diffraction thing, red light having a longer wavelength, yadda yadda). But on the laptop, I'm seeing lots of blue areas in the small branches as well--but remember I'm on a laptop.
In summary, I tend towards the second explaination given what I'm seeing, but I hope my brainstorming of various 'fingerprints' of different color artifacts might provide a basis for future analysis.
Thanks, all!
--Joe
---
Joe Decker
Rock Slide Photography
-
Eric:
OK, you make a good point. Not ALL landscape photography.
With the current firmware, the 14n is not optimized for exposures longer than 1/2 sec. And it does not produce the very best image quality, at ISO 80, in low light conditions or deep shade.
Of course, a lot of landscape photography is not done in such conditions.
The Pro 14n would have produced beautiful images of the Death Valley dunes, in late afternoon, when I was shooting that a couple of weeks ago. Exposures were never longer than 1/45 sec. at ISO 100 with the EOS 1Ds that I own.
In truth, I cannot think of that many landscape images that I have made at shutter speeds longer than 1/15 sec. So, I still think the Pro 14n would be fine for "some landscape photography."
Peter Burian
-
Hi Peter,
I primarily shoot landscapes with my Pentax 645Nii.
It records exposure and F-stop directly on the film.
Looking back at my exposures for the last 6 months, taken with ISO 100 & ISO 50 film, I note the following. A full 70% of my exposures were taken at shutter speeds between 1/8 second to 4 seconds in duration. The next 20% were shot at 1/15 to 1/30 of a second. Only 10% were shot at speeds greater than 1/30 second. The shots with the very best light were typically at a shutter speed of 1 second.
See: http://wyofoto.com/Teton_Fall_2002/OxbowFall1.htm (http://wyofoto.com/Teton_Fall_2002/OxbowFall1.htm)
I was very seriously considering a purchase of the Pro14n.
The most recent low light results have changed my mind.
I think it may work well in brightly lit studio conditions, but it doesn't appear to have what it takes for low light landscape work.
-
Peter - Fair enough. We will all make our own choices (and I've already made mine anyway).
BTW: I live in Edmonton, so my problem is usually hiking in -30C weather on snow shoes . Weight is always a consideration (but you might get a little bogged down carrying all those extra batteries with you for the 14n ).
cheers,
Eric
Eric: I bought the first production sample of the EOS 1Ds to arrive in Canada (in October).
Do not tell my wife what I paid for it.
Oh, yeah ... extra batteries or a remote battery pack. See www.digitalcamerabattery.com They have a dedicated cable for the Pro 14n. (Vistek sells this kit.) A lot of wedding, event, etc. pros already use a remote pack to power flash; with a second cable, it can also power a camera.
Peter
-
Peter,
And, Steve has arrived at essentially the same conclusions as I did. He has just been more polite about it.
Pros: Great resolution at ISO 80 and in bright light.
Cons: - Poor design (viewfinder). Poor ergonomics. Cheap built quality and non-digital capabilties for the price. Unacceptable turn-on lag. Atrocious image quality at medium to high ISOs and in moderately low light. Serious aliasing artifacts, etc etc.
Why continue to defend this dog? It woofs. If this was from any company other than the Great Yellow Father they'd be laughed out of town. As it is if they indeed ship it in its current state the 14n will seriously tarnish Kodak's image, not to mention its bottom line.
Michael
-
Sorry Peter, but I can't accept your position. In fact it's starting to annoy me.
My review was indeed based on a brief period of time with the 14n. I didn't need longer. In fact I had determined that the 14n was seriously flawed before even taking the first frame. Yes, my mind was made up quickly.
It's a badly designed camera irrespective of image quality. I didn't need more than 3 minutes with the 14n to know that the ergonomics were a disaster. The need to mash my face up to the camera to be able to see through the viewfinder wasn't difficult to discover. Turning the Menu button on with my nose whenever I raised the camera to my eye happened almost every time, due to the poorly designed and badly located and raised buttons.
It took me all of the first minute with the camera to discover that the turn-on time at 13 seconds (then reduced to 10 seconds) completely eliminated it from serious consideration as anything other than a studio camera.
A few hours of shooting showed me that the battery is completely inadequate, producing 50 or less frames on a charge.
The lack of mirror lock up removes the camera from serious consideration for many photographers, and it's a scandal that this is described as a "professional" camera with such omissions. I saw that it was missing by reading the manual, something I did before even loading a card into the camera.
All of this without shooting a single frame. Then when I did I saw how deficient it was at moderate to high ISO settings, in low light and at moderate to slow shutter speeds it didn't take me long to draw some pretty damning conclusions.
I usually take my time with a new camera, especially a digital. But the Kodak 14n didn't require more than a single day to prove itself to be an unmitigated disaster.
Unless and until the 14n is completely redesigned to eliminate these flaws I stand firm in my condemnation. And this business about using pre-production firmware is so much bull. I used the firmware that was with the camera as shipped from Kodak's head office EARLIER THAT SAME DAY! This is the firmware that is in cameras shipped to U.S. and Canadian dealers for their evaluation and for demos to customers.
I then tested with the firmware that Kodak e-mailed to me, which I am told is the firmware that will be in customer's shipping cameras. There was no noticable improvement in image quality. A few dozen frames and a couple of hours showed me that. So, please, stop riding that hobby horse. It's getting lame.
To characterize my review as somehow hasty, and thus flawed, is bullshit. I arrived at my negative conclusions in just one day. I didn't need a moment longer because nothing was going to change. Steve took however long he took to arrive at his, but we both got to the same place, (or have you missed that point)?
With all due respect to Steve (and I do respect the work that he does), 80% of his "review" is simply a detailed report on the camera's specs and features. I don't do that. I write reviews from the perspective of real-world photogapghers who spend their hard earned money on such gear and want to know how it will perform. Period. The specs can be found in the manufacturer's literature. When people read a review of mine they want to know how it performs, not read what's available in the catalog. And I tell them what I think, without equivocation.
In any event. I look forward to seeing your own review, either online or in print. Based on your comments my guess is that it will be a whitewash. I wonder why?
Michael
Ps: There likely won't be a Part III. Kodak appears to have decided not to provide me with a camera next week. They have not confirmed an appointment scheduled for Monday, and somehow I don't expect them to. So be it.
-
Peter,
Continuing with our earlier discussion of the ERI-JPEG:
Steve's review made repeated comments that the ERI-JPEG quality was lower than the quality of RAW, and, as best I could tell, was also trying to politely infer that the quality of the ERI-JPEG was not acceptable.
Is this congruent with your own experience of the ERI-JPEG? If yes, then how does this factor into your perception of the ERI-JPEG having a high value? If no, could you give me any conjecture about the problems with Steve's methods with the ERI-JPEG?
On a separate note, I thought that the image quality displayed in the ISO/ASA 100 studio samples in Steve's review was quite appalling. Do you find the image quality in Steve's studio samples acceptable? Are Steve's samples in accordance with your experience of what one should expect from this camera in the studio?
Thanks, Peter,
Mike
-
>>I find it very refreshing to read an honest, 'no pulled punches' review of a product. I think most readers of this forum should be savvy enough to realise that most magazines, and many web sites, are inevitably compromised to some degree in reviewing a product, by financial considerations.<<
I have to disagree. Most reviews of cameras are positive because modern product design and manufacture is at this point in time (assuming a company is really trying) essentially perfect--meaning that most cameras are essentially good (I'm not talking about the 14n) and any failings noted in a review are merely the expression of the personal fetishes and preferences of the reviewer.
I'm not talking about Michael's 14N review. I'm simply stating that I don't think it's reasonable to view as 'always suspect' a positive review. The fact that millions of people buy millions of different cameras each year and aren't complaining is I think enough evidence that camera makers are more often than not hitting the mark, so to speak.
-
Ray,
I don't think we really disagree. But I think there's a big difference between subjective and objective criticism of a product. (I won't go into my ideas on this subject!) Many products we buy today are mature in design, testing and reliability. There's not much that can be done to improve the basic functioning of a VCR or a dishwasher or an entry level compact car or any number of other products. When you get to that level of maturity such products should get good reviews, if they're even reviewed at all, because they're actually good products.
Erik
-
It's okay to describe the 1200 (in a review) as not having archival inks (or any other measurable characteristic)--that's objective. But it's subjective to say that that characteristic(s) then makes it a good or a bad printer. The product only becomes good or bad based upon the needs of the user.
Well yes, up to a point. But you have to offer some opinion, however qualified, or all you'd do is state the findings without any reference point.
I mean, some people might love the high noise at 400 ISO with the 14n, but it would be reasonable nonetheless to comment critically on it in a review, as most people would find it a limitation. Similarly with the 1200 non-archival inks. Just don't be too dogmatic about it.
Quentin
-
Another Pro 14n Preview has been published.
On MSN.com
http://photos.msn.com/editori....RTMENTS (http://photos.msn.com/editorial/EditorialStart.aspx?article=EarlyLookAtTheKodakDCSPro14n§ion=DEPARTMENTS)
-
Arf arf. It looks like a real dog next to the Canon.
-
I think, Michael, that you have bent over backwards to be fair to the 14n. It will appeal to studio photogs operating at 80 ISO. It will not appeal to me.
What really worries me is the color alaising, or whatever it is, in tree branches. This odd effect is also present in shots of rippling water (eg, the sea) from other samples I have seen. I don't see how this can be removed ex post facto, as it is too random for post processing.
This leaves the Nikon line of cameras without an authentic general purpose challenger to the 1Ds. I really do wonder what Nikon have up their 1.5 factor sleave.
Mind you, chop the new Fuji medium format 20.8mp sensor in half, and stick one half of it in a Nikon body, and I might well be interested.
Quentin (registered, but not on my regular computer).
-
Send me an e-mail adress and I'll send you a crop from one of my RAW images made at ISO 100. A 4MB tif file, without compression.
I think you'll be pleasantly surprised at the image quality the Pro 14n can deliver.
Peter Burian
OR I can send the full image, downsized and saved as a JPEG - it is then a 4MB file.
Peter Burian
-
Peter - Fair enough. We will all make our own choices (and I've already made mine anyway).
BTW: I live in Edmonton, so my problem is usually hiking in -30C weather on snow shoes . Weight is always a consideration (but you might get a little bogged down carrying all those extra batteries with you for the 14n ).
cheers,
Eric
-
An interesting article at
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_pag...p?cid=6007-6112 (http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007-6112)
<< The DCS Pro 14n generates enormous RAW format files and is able to write only a maximum of 6 frames in a burst (at least with the initial shipping firmware version of 4.1.2, and without the optional buffer RAM upgrade). Taken together, you have a camera that has a tremendous need for CompactFlash speed. Fortunately, Kodak has designed the 14n to write photos quickly; this camera features one of the fastest write interfaces of any digital SLR currently available.
CompactFlash Write Speed - Kodak DCS Pro 14n
The data in the table below was derived by timing how long it took the Kodak DCS Pro 14n to write out 6 RAW .DCR photos to the card. Timing commenced when the camera's card status light illuminated, and stopped when the light went out. Each test cycle was performed 3 times (if the card's capacity allowed for that) to ensure accurate results. >>>
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_pag...p?cid=6007-6112 (http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007-6112)
-
<< I usually take my time with a new camera, especially a digital. But the Kodak 14n didn't require more than a single day to prove itself to be an unmitigated disaster. >>
OK, Michael, we have both made our points. We take different approaches.
I test the daylights out of a camera before publishing Conclusions and you decide in a half day that a camera is a disaster - and publish that.
Since you find my comments annoying, I promise I won't post any more replies to your posts. And you own the site so you can prohibit my access at any time.
<< In any event. I look forward to seeing your own review, either online or in print. Based on your comments my guess is that it will be a whitewash. I wonder why? >>
Your implications above are duly noted.
My preliminary review will be published in print, in late May, taking the approach that I outlined in an earlier post.
Peter
-
Excuse me Peter but I have to ask, do you some kind of financial tie with Kodak, or do you just like to see how many posts you can make? I can't believe the great lengths you have gone to defend the 14n camera. Why don't you give the bandwidth a rest, and finish your (obviously positive) review of the camera, post it and move on. Your attitude is getting a bit old.
Thanks in advance.
-
Peter,
Macintoshes (and Netscape) are forbidden to read that "MS software only" site; can you say briefly if it adds any substantially new information or opinions to what we have read here and at steves-digicams?
-
This is a great disappointment. Not that I have any Nikon mount lenses, but I was hoping the competition from a cheaper alternative would put pressure on the pricing of the 1Ds. There's been much speculation that the 14n might persuade some people to switch systems. In view of these initial impressions from Michael, that seems very unlikely.
For those who have invested heavily in Canon lenses, it's gratifying to know that Canon is still ahead in the game. There must be a lot of pressure on Kodak to catch up, otherwise they wouldn't be releasing a camera that clearly isn't ready and needs further firmware updates. You'd have to have a lot of faith to buy the 14n at this stage in the expectation that things will eventually be put right. Look at the Contax debacle.
-
Peter,
Am I to assume that you are infering that my approach isn't logical?
At least I'm willing to be honest about the limitations of this camera. Can you imagine saying to a customer who is about to buy a film camera, "Oh by the way, you can't use film rated higher than ISO 100. And, be carefull shooting backlight subjects with fine detail. And, did I mention - you can't use shutter speeds slower than 1/4 second."
The fact that the firmware in dealers cameras is not the final version is beside the point. Kodak has had 6 months to get the firmware right and they're still scrambling. I doubt that another week, or month, is going to change things dramatically. In any event, the firmware that I used yesterday is, according to Kodak, the one that will be in the shipping cameras and though there are some small fixes it hasn't dramatically changed anything.
I refuse to pussyfoot on this issue. For U.S. $5,000 a professional photographer deserves to get a superb camera able to be used in a wide variety of situations. The Kodak 14n is seriously limited and potential customers deserve to be informed of this. The fact that it is built based on a $350 consumer model body is also not going to be addressed by a firmware upgrade.
Sorry Peter, the King is naked and someone has have the guts to say so.
Michael
-
Peter, first you mention the value of the ERI-JPEG, then a few sentences later, you say that this is camera is targeted for studio and portrait photographers, not available light photographers. (By the way, am I remembering incorrectly that Kodak was also originally marketing this as a landscape shooter?)
Those seem contradictory to me. Why would a studio photographer, using controlled lighting, ever be wildly missing his/her exposures, and therefore be needing the ERI-JPEG?
Frankly, I don't see much value in the ERI-JPEG, at all. I'm strictly an available light nature photographer, usually spotmetering and manually setting aperture and shutter speed, and I can't remember the last time that I've missed my exposure by a stop. (Autoexposure works darn well, too.) It's a very, very rare occurrence, if it ever happens at all. I'm guessing that the the same is true for practically all the people who spend $5,000 or more on cameras.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the value of the ERI-JPEG. Please feel welcome to elaborate.
--Mike
Mike: I do not recall Kodak saying the camera targets the landscape photographer (but see my comment below). ERI JPEG is useful when you don't have a lot of space on a memory card.
e.g. A photographer shooting grad photos at a school. Hundreds of students. Smaller JPEG files are great, because he does not need to keep switching to new memory cards. And in 13.5MP capture, the JPEG's are gorgeous.
If color balance and exposure are great ... fine. Don't use the Kodak software to adjust them.
I think the camera would be fine for some outdoor nature, travel and landscape photography, in good light. Then, the ERI JPEG feature might be useful.
If you get exposure dead on every time, and color balance too, great! Ignore the benefits of the ERI JPEG mode.
Peter
-
If you were going to spend several hours hiking in to a location would you rather have a 1Ds or a 14n with you?
Eric: Am I hiking an hour through deep sand, carrying a lot of equipment and a tripod? In 90 degree temperatures? And then an hour to get out?
Perhaps the lighter camera.
All joking aside, I am not getting into a Canon vs. Kodak debate. If someone paid me enough to conduct and write a full COMPARO TEST REPORT, maybe I would do so.
Peter
-
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/dcspro14n.html (http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/dcspro14n.html)
He used firmware v 4.1.2
<< Kodak DCS Pro 14n Review Posted Steves Digicams >>
Very long and multi-faceted review.
Peter
-
Stick to your guns, Michael. After looking at the 14n sample images on Kodak's web site and the images in your review and elsewhere, it became apparent to me that the 14n, pixel for pixel, has lower image quality than even their DC4800, a 3.1 megapixel digicam discontinued nearly 2 years ago. (I bought one on closeout at the time and shot over 10,000 frames with it so I have a fairly good idea of its' capabilities) The 4800 isn't much better than the 14n in the noise department, but it is generally significantly better in terms of color fidelity, except when the 14n is at ISO 80 in sunlight. And the 4800 has never exhibited that funky stippling the the 14n shows in some of your test shots.
The fact that you can make any kind of comparison between a $400 consumer-grade digicam and a "pro" DSLR that costs 10 times as much is kind of ridiculous; the only advantage the 14n has is 4x the pixels; but they aren't any better then the DC4800's pixels. That is truly unfortunate.
-
I find it very refreshing to read an honest, 'no pulled punches' review of a product. I think most readers of this forum should be savvy enough to realise that most magazines, and many web sites, are inevitably compromised to some degree in reviewing a product, by financial considerations. How often do you see in a magazine, a review of a particular product and then 2 pages further on, an advertisement for that very same product.
Michael's review of the 14n is negative, sure. And his review of the D30 was equally positive, if not more so.
The public is not served by reviewers masquerading as being truly independant and able to say whatever they feel to be true without fear or favour, when in reality their existence is dependent upon advertising revenue or sales commissions.
-
BJL: The MSN.com Review is very, very long. The best I can do is to send you a copy of it in an e-mail.
Here is an excerpt:
<<< Early Look at the Kodak DCS Pro 14n Digital SLR
14 Megapixels of Detail and Color, But What About Noise?
By Charlotte K. Lowrie, managing editor>>>
<<<< It takes a village: Camera reviews seldom involve more than the writer/photographer who reviews the camera. For this review, however, I had invaluable assistance from Dan Hyde of Digital Vista Studios; Marc Konik of GA Communications in Stone Mountain, Georgia; David Norris, chairman and CEO at OnRequest Images; and Peter Burian, MSN Photos contributing writer. In addition, the professional team at Kodak, particularly Jay Kelbley, worldwide product manager, provided ongoing, in-depth technical information throughout the two weeks of evaluation.
Update Note: This review, as well as early reviews on the DCS 14n, was initially written after using a pre-production camera. The camera firmware on that camera was not final. Just before publication, however, I was able to use a Pro 14n with a later version of the firmware, and the improvements to overall operation and tweaks to image quality were impressive.
Conclusions
Since the cameras went out to reviewers, the DCS Pro 14n has created a storm of opinion. Much of it has been negative, perhaps because the first published review (on the Web) was very critical of the camera and included sample images with high noise levels. As I understand it, that first review was based on a brief shooting experience with an early version of the firmware with pictures taken primarily in low light at ISO 400. Unfortunately, a "first" review can prematurely set public opinion.
More detailed reviews, based on more extensive testing in a broad variety of conditions, were published during the subsequent week on other digital camera Web sites. While those tests were also made with the early version of the firmware, they did highlight both the pros and the cons of the DCS Pro 14n.
For my part, I found that it took a full two weeks of shooting with the camera, in a broad variety of lighting conditions and ISO settings, with various versions of the firmware, to get a feel for it, to evaluate the images, and to formulate my opinion.
Considering all that has been written about this camera, I'll cut to the chase. There are lighting situations, ISO settings, and shutter speeds that produce digital noise that is objectionable. But, let's be fair here: I've shot with another brand, high-end digital SLR for around two years, and at ISO settings above 250 or 320, that camera also produces image noise that I find just too annoying to deal with. Frequently, I simply delete the images. As a result, it takes a really special photo op for me to crank up the ISO to anywhere near 400. The same hesitation applies when I think of making high ISO or long exposures with the DCS Pro 14n, particularly with firmware that is not optimized for exposures longer than 1/2 sec.
The Pro 14n produces ultra-high resolution images of exceptional quality, but it is not the perfect, do-it-all camera. It is not the ideal choice if you must routinely shoot long exposures, or work at ISO settings above 320, or if you're a wedding photographer who cannot use flash in a dark chapel. Because it does not offer a high-speed fps option, this is not the right camera for sports and news photography. And I don't recommend buying the DCS Pro 14n if you need an instant-on camera, or if you tend to bite your nails after one or two seconds of waiting for the buffer to clear. Wait to see what speed improvements are produced by later versions of the firmware and by the optional buffer upgrade (from 256 MB to 512 MB) that Kodak will offer.
Buy this camera if you routinely shoot at ISO 80 to ISO 200, or if you work under studio lighting, or if you rarely need exposures that are longer than a quarter-second. If you shoot within those parameters, you may need to fiddle with the "noise reduction versus maximum detail" settings, but you won't need to do this very often based on my experience. And if your photography falls into this category, buy this camera if you want beautiful, rich images with a level of detail that you've forgotten that pictures could have.
And if you buy the camera, take time to get to know its strengths and its weaknesses. The "getting-to-know-you" phase should take about two weeks; afterwards, you shouldn't have to think about it again. But do check for free firmware upgrades on the Kodak Professional Web site from time to time. Take advantage of updates for new camera functions, for faster startup time, for greater burst depth, for more ISO options in high resolution capture, and perhaps for improvements in image quality. Also think about the extra-cost option for doubling the size of the buffer memory. Once it is available, that upgrade will allow you to shoot more images more quickly.
Here is how I rate the DCS Pro 14n.
Color, detail, tonal range, ease of use Excellent.
Visible digital noise Depending on the lighting, ISO, or shutter speed, digital noise ranges from invisible to annoying.
As I've said before, this camera loves light and produces beautiful images under the right lighting conditions. Noise is virtually non-existent in low ISO images, particularly those made in sunny or cloudy/bright outdoor light or under studio lighting. For optimum quality, shoot in RAW capture mode and set Noise Reduction to zero in the Photo Desk software. Digital noise is more visible in images made at high ISO settings, of low-contrast subjects, and of scenes in deep shade or in low light. The lower the light and contrast, and the higher the ISO, the more objectionable the noise level tends to be. Images made under these conditions call for a trade-off: a higher level of Noise Reduction (in-camera or in Photo Desk software) to minimize color artifacts but with a loss of definition in intricate detail.
Value for the money Very good. I base this rating on several factors: the camera's outstanding image quality (within the previously stated parameters), the low price as compared to the EOS 1Ds, plus the ongoing firmware and software updates that will keep the DCS Pro 14n, as well as the processing environment, and workflow, up to date at no additional cost. While the buffer size increase will be an extra-cost option, it will enhance the camera's value.
To see a gallery of photos taken with the DCS Pro 14n and full-resolution cutaways from some of the images, visit wordsandphotos.org >>>>
THE ABOVE IS JUST A SHORT EXCERPT