Pro 14n Review - Popular Photography Magazine

[Jonathan Wienke]

Dude, give it a rest. Yes, the 14n can take great pictures, at ISO 80, in good light. Fine. Go outside these parameters, and it has serious issues. In the last week, you have started no less than seven topics ballyhooing the 14n. Why continue beating a dead horse?

[Adri]

I can't believe Popular Photography anymore, except on lens and film testing, since they have the equipment to test.

On scanners and digital cameras: I have seen them give favorable reviews to items that didn't make the grade anywhere else, especially from photographers.

I take them with a big grain of salt.

[BJL]

... Yes, the 14n can take great pictures, at ISO 80, in good light. ...

Not that I am at all sold on the 14n, but as a scientist curious about what a product like this tells me about the way the technology is developing, I have to ask:


Why are so many people saying that the 14n works well ONLY at ISO80?


This seems to be jumping to conclusions beyond those supported by the evidence I have seen reported. The reports I have seen so far have been critical of noise "at ISO 400" (Michael R. on this site) and "at above ISO200" (someone at the MSN site). The 14n has lots of ISO options in between: 100, 125, 160, 200. If (big if) it works well at up to ISO200, that would not be so bad for a studio/flash/non-action photographer.


P. S. I am not at all faulting Michael R. for only checking the extreme ISO's in his relatively brief opportunity with the camera, especially given that he looked enough to safely conclude that the 14n is unsatisfactory for his purposes, and so had little incentive to do further extensive study. After all, assesment of suitability for his purposes is the declared primary goal of his equipment evaluations.

[Ray]

Surely the point here is, what is meant by 'works well'? It's all relative. Compared with the average point & shoot camera, I'm sure the 14n works exceedingly well at ISO 400, but compared with the 1Ds it doesn't. Cameras such as the D30, D60, 10D and 1Ds etc have set the standard for noise. The 14n appears to match these standards only at ISO 80 in good light. As one deviates from this setting and moves in the direction of higher ISO, whether it be 125, 160 or 400, or slower shutter speed whilst maintaining the ISO 80 setting, the noise increases and falls below the standard set by the Canon DSLR's. At least this is the impression I've got from reading reviews and comments on the 14n.

If someone wishes to make a case that at ISO 125, the 14n is only very marginally noisier than at ISO 80, that's fine and it's what you would expect. I get no sense of a 'cliff face' fall off in performance in anything I've read about the 14n.

Basically, the criticism that's being made is that the 14n does not perform as well as its peers in low light situations. That the camera has a more basic body and no AA filter accounts for the lower price compared with the 1Ds. That's understandable. That the images are noisier than the Canon DSLR's at BOTH higher ISO settings AND slow shutter speeds is a rude shock and calls into question the 'value' of the $5000 price tag.

It's all very clear to me.

[Ray]

   how many times does this need to be said and asked: NO evidence I have read or seen shows that the performance is good ONLY at 80, so why do both of you and so many other people keep repeating that apparently unsubstantiated idea? Even conceding that the 14n could be almost as good at 125 goes well beyond any adverse evidence I have seen.

JBL,
I think the reason for this is that Michael's part 1 review compared both cameras at ISO 100 and the 14n was found to be noisier. The updated firmware for the 14n, which was used in the part 2 review, allowed for shooting at the optimum setting of ISO 80 (as well as more choices of ISO settings). As I remember, there has been no suggestion that the new firmware has improved noise levels across the board. If it has, then let's have a clear, uniquivocal statement to that effect from the 'save the 14n' camp, and some direct comparisons between the 14n at ISO 200 and the 1Ds at ISO 200.

I agree that high noise levels at 400 ISO and above is not such a serious issue by itself. Most users will try to shoot at the camera's optimum, most noise-free setting most of the time, whatever camera they're using. But couple those 'unacceptable' noise levels at high ISO settings with 'unacceptable' noise levels at slow shutter speeds, and you get a serious limitation. No night photography, for example.

If it is indeed true that the 14n has noise levels at 100 & 200 ISO comparable with those of the 1Ds, then Michael should have eaten a bit more crow and mentioned it in order to dispel the impression from the earlier review.

[Ray]

BJL,
Methinks thou doest protest too much! Could it be you have your own bias against the 1Ds which you have often called the D1s?

[chrisso]

No I think thou doesprotest too much!
And I ain't gunning for either DSLR.

[Ray]

BJL,
Dear me! I seem to have got a ticking off. My remark was tongue in cheek. Just a bit of insouciance. Not to be taken too seriously. If I'd really wanted to challenge your impartiality and objectivity, I'd have used a few more words than that. Sorry if I've struck a raw nerve.

By the way, looking at some of your comments on the 1Ds, I get the impression you're of the opinion the 1Ds is unusually noise free, ahead of the pack in that department and that it would be a tall order for any camera to match its low noise. Yet Phil Askey's reviews of the Canon DSLRs puts them all in the same ball park with regard to noise, with small differences at particular ISO settings that don't appear to be of much practical significance. For example the D60 at ISO 100 & 200 is marginally less noisy than the 1Ds (surprise!) but not at ISO 400 and above. If there's a clear winner in a practical and meaningful way, it would be the latest and cheapest of the Canon DSLRs, the 10D. It's no accident that MR's current featured image of a crane sitting on top of a bush was taken with the 10D at ISO 800. I wouldn't be surprised if Michael were to use this shot in his forthcoming review of the 10D to demonstrate the point that at ISO 800 the 10D is no noisier than the D60 at ISO 400, and almost as noise free as the 1Ds at ISO 400.

We'll have to wait till Phil Askey does a thorough review of the 14n to get a better idea of the relative noise levels at various ISO settings. Maybe he'll be really kind and not compare it with the much cheaper 10D.

[Ray]

the Canon 10D with 17-40 lens seems to be the best current compromise for someone like me with a sub-professional budget and an enthusiasm for moderately (but not extremely) wide angle compositions.

BJL,
Absolutely! I agree completely. At some point one has to jump in, otherwise one waits indefinitely. I deliberated long and hard over whether to buy the D30 and decided that 3MP was simply not enough for the asking price. I'm glad I waited because the D60 is better and was less expensive. If I'd waited longer I could have had the benefit of the 10D (can't afford to upgrade). On the other hand, I would not have had the joy of shooting about 5000 photos in the 9 or 10 months I've owned the D60. (Needless to say, most of those shots have been discarded after downloading and converting.) The fact is, as an amateur, there's no way I would have taken this many photos with a film based camera. The cost of film and development alone would have been equivalent to about 1/3 the cost of the D60, not to mention the many, many hours I would have spent scanning the film.

In my view, a good DSLR will encourage any user to take more photos, and in my experience considerably more, provided the over all quality of the images is not compromised (compared to 35mm film, if that's what you're used to). Could be I'm biased, but I actually prefer the look of a D60 image to a 35mm film.

[Peter K. Burian]

I have not yet seen it, but the May issue of Popular Photography includes a test report on the Pro 14n including lab test results, etc.

Added Note: Just got an E-mail from a friend who has a copy.

Apparently it is quite favorable.

Peter Burian

[Doug_Dolde]

He has to justify his expenditure somehow.  

[Marshal]

I doubt you'll ever see a negative review in PopPhoto and all you have to do is see or count the high percentage of advertising vs editorial content to see why.

[Peter K. Burian]

<< Why are so many people saying that the 14n works well ONLY at ISO80? >>

BJL: I have no idea.

Yes, the MSN.com, Steves and Imaging Resource reviews are more specific as to image quality at various ISO. As I said before, there are a lot of ISO settings between 80 and 400.

Peter Burian

[Jonathan Wienke]

Thank you, Ray.
If none of the Canon DSLR's existed, the 14n would probably be a well-regarded camera, since its' noise levels are fairly comparable to the equivalent ISO 35mm film. But since Canon's DSLR's have sensor performance that significantly exceeds that of film, the 14n is a bastard red-headed stepchild in comparison. If the 14n was priced head-to-head to compete with the 10D, you could rationalize the noise issue by saying that after you downsampled to 6 MP, the noise and other artifacts unique to the 14n would be less visible and it would be a much more even tradeoff--fullframe vs APS sensor, 14 MP vs 6 MP, etc.; you could go either way and not feel too shortchanged. But since the 14n is priced much closer the the 1Ds than the 10D, (you can buy a decent used car for what either the 14n or the 1Ds costs) the lack of weather sealing, the smaller buffer, lower frame rate, poor low-light sensor performance, limits on shutter speed, and lower maximum ISO make the additional $2500 or so for the 1Ds look like a really good investment. If I'm going to spend the equivalent of multiple mortgage payments on a camera body, it better do everything but wash my dishes and wipe my behind, and do it well, or I'm gonna be pissed.

[BJL]

The 14n appears to match these standards ONLY AT ISO 80 in good light. (emphasis added, and paralleling what Jonathan Wienke said earlier - BJL)

Ray and Jonathan,

    how many times does this need to be said and asked: NO evidence I have read or seen shows that the performance is good ONLY at 80, so why do both of you and so many other people keep repeating that apparently unsubstantiated idea? Even conceding that the 14n could be almost as good at 125 goes well beyond any adverse evidence I have seen.

I am not disputing any other adverse assessments such as those summarised by Jonathan, just this issue of "highest usable sensor speed."

Has anyone seen anything bad about noise levels at anything up to and including ISO 200? Since my cheapo digicam is  far, far worse at 400 than at 200, I do not think one can extrapolate down so far from the 400 performance.

What I have seen consistently is favorable comments and samples for "lower ISO's", not just 80, and no unfavorable comments or evidence anywhere about noise levels until ABOVE 200. On the other hand, there is a complete gap between 125 and 400 in the images I have seen posted or directly discussed, so the threshold COULD be anywhere from 125 to 250 for all I know. Since almost all my color photography, film and digital, is between 100 and 200, the difference is very important to me.


Perhaps people come to this conclusion from an apparent lack of positive evidence: so many of the good images displayed are at ISO 80, and so one might suspect that everything higher looks bad. But these samples are typically from Nikon based studio photographers, obviously out to see what is the best image quality possible in their controlled lighting environment: why would they test at anything other than the optimal, lowest ISO, any more than they would use coarser grained, higher ISO films? If every favorable review also stayed at ISO 80, that would be a "red flag", but instead they go up to at least 125 in images and 200 in words.

[BJL]

OK, I (BJL, not a brand of speakers by the way) have discussed this detail enough, and reviewing comments and samples of ISO 100 and 125 from Michael R. and others gives me a more balanced assessment: the 14n is noisier there than the extremely low noise 1Ds, but perhaps still quite good, given that the 1Ds noise levels are also far better then film and all other DSLR's as far as I know, and MR did not go so far as to say the noise is unacceptably bad (which he did for 400), so I really have no clear idea where that puts the 14n image quality compared to either film or any of the cheaper DSLR's, which is what Nikon based pros and others without the extra $3000 might be wondering.

But probably even many of them will prefer to wait for Nikon's successor to the D1x (if they are reluctant to convert wholesale to Canon), especially since Nikon seems now to be keeping its top quality camera components to itself. I wish Nikon would at least sell good parts to Fuji, or buy good sensors from Fuji, or use their own well regarded 11MP CCD's, no matter how untrendy CCD is.

[BJL]

BJL,
 ... Could it be you have your own bias against the 1Ds which you have often called the D1s?

Ray,

   that is the worst argument I have ever heard you made in this forum; sorry if I sound annoyed, but you have crossed from your usual thoughtful discussion of facts and evidence into an ad hominium attack on my motivations, and one that is flatly contradicted by the evidence of what I have actually said.

You (and so many people in so many debates) seem to be thinking that most people "takes side" early in a discussion, and then only present arguments and evidence supporting their overall "cause", so that making particular arguments on one aspect must be suspected of secretly being motivated by support for that cause.

I instead have the habits of my scientific profession; I like to carefully assess each individual argument in an analysis, regardless of whether it flows with or against my overall evaluation, and get annoyed when others are less carefully critical. One of my favourite non-fiction books is "The Mismeasure of Man" by Stephen Jay Gould, about the unconscious working of prejudices in scientific assessments through habits like selective use and weighting of evidence and arguments; if you have read it you might understand where I am coming from.


On my alleged bias: as far as I recall, I have never expressed any significant criticisms of the 1Ds except that it is far too expensive for me and that I therefore hope for cheaper options as well; certainly I am completely convinced that the 1Ds is overall far superior to the 14n, and am selfishly rather happy that Canon is doing so well with DSLR's, and so might soon offer what I want in my price range, because I have Canon 35mm SLR equipment now, would like to be able to buy to a good DSLR soon, and would be very reluctant to have to add a collection of Nikon, Sigma or Pentax lenses and accessories.

Reread my comments: have I not accepted many of the criticisms of the 14n (which seems to me a hurried attempt to head of Canon's surpassing of Kodak in the DSLR market)? And where in my comments do you see any evidence of a prejudice against the 1Ds, or any hint of an adverse conclusion about it?


P. S. I am stangely bothered by a seemingly small point; your distorted recollection of the typo "D1s" that I made once, not "often" as you exagerate it, and have long since corrected and even apologized for. Raising that typo rather than any significant evidence of a bias seems to show how unfounded your allegation is. (My comment on the unfortunately common confusion of my screen name was intended as a joking ripost to your correction of my earlier "D1s" mistake, not an attack on your credibility.)

[Peter K. Burian]

<< And where in my comments do you see any evidence of a prejudice against the 1Ds, or any hint of an adverse conclusion about it? >>

BJL: I certainly don't see any.

And, btw, I own a Canon system and I am happy with my EOS 1Ds.

But that does not mean that I have a pro Canon bias. I often evaluate cameras and lenses of other brands for various photo magazines.

Peter

[BJL]

Ray,

   sorry if I overreacted ... anyway, to declare my biases for once and for all, after assessing all this noise level information including what you just mentioned, the Canon 10D with 17-40 lens seems to be the best current compromise for someone like me with a sub-professional budget and an enthusiasm for moderately (but not extremely) wide angle compositions. I do hope that Nikon/Fuji/Pentax offer good lens/body competition later this year, if only to keep Canon under pressure to improve even more on things like convenient zoom lens choices for their "35mm/1.6 format" (maybe a 16-50+ f/3.5-4.5 "advanced amateur" lens?)


That is partly because one thing that the noise performance of cameras like the 14n and the Sigma with Foveon X3 sensor have shown is that no-one has yet fully solved the problem of avoiding colour aliasing without an AA filter (either with small pixels or X3 technology) while still having good noise, speed and dynamic range flexibility; and those big AA filters ($2000?) will probably keep good quality 35mm format DSLR body prices at emphatically pro level at least for long enough that one would not regret buying a 10D for the time being.