Best buy -- kodaks?

[Jonathan Wienke]

I shoot about 50,000 frames a year, many of which are at concerts and horse shows where the lighting is low and ISO 1600 and 3200 are a necessity. For an extra $200-500, you can get a 1D-MkII which has adequate resolution for most tasks, 8FPS, and excellent high-ISO performance. If you're doing daylight landscape or studio work with strobes, the Kodaks make sense as a special-purpose tool, but for general photographic use where buffer size, frame rate, and high ISO performance matter, the 1D-MkII makes much more sense than any of the Kodak offerings.

[Jonathan Wienke]

I would just say that 8fps at 3200 ISO isn't 'general purpose' photographic use. It's specialized professional photography.

I'll go along with that for the 8FPS, but usable ISO 3200 is something every photographer can benefit from. Lots of amateur P&Sers shoot indoors where the light is unsuitable for ISO 100. A new 1D-MkII can be had for $3749 at buydig.com. You're giving up a lot to save less than $300 by going with the Kodak.

[BJL]

The differences about how much sensor speed people want or need continue. I see why many, like Jonathan, benefit a lot from a very good low-light/high shutter speed camera, but it seems an exageration to say that being limited to about ISO 200 makes a camera only a "special purpose tool".

a) MF with its slower lenses is equally limited in shutter speeds even with ISO 400 or maybe 800 films, which is also about where MF backs stop for now. Clearly this somewhat limited speed range works for some!

 Many 35mm film photographers use almost exclusively reversal film at ISO 200 and below (or even limit themselves to ISO 100), including work done in moderately low light like dawn and dusk. Ths works particularly for those who can feasably use a tripod almost all the time, as seems appropriate to the high MP realm. Higher sensor speeds clearly add some convenience and more opportunities, but for some,that is a minor factor, not worth the several thousand extra dollars.

[BJL]

we're talking <$300 if 8MP is acceptable resolution.

True, but for many of those considering 35mm format DSLRs, the high resolution images given by 11MP or 13.5MP or 16.5MP or whatever are of particular interest. And perhaps wide angle coverage is too, which is the most noticable weakness of the 1D, with its 1.3x crop and no reduced image circle lenses to compensate.

Then again, maybe we can lump all photography needing more than 8 MP as "special purpose", and then your description holds. As a happy user of the 5MP E-1, and one who takes comfort in knowing of the perhaps small yet significant number of professionals and very talented amateurs using the E-1, I would not dispute too vigorously the idea that "over 8MP is special purpose".


Aside: the MP race in one-piece digicams seems to have come to a screeching halt at 8MP, with a consolidation on lots of 5, 6, and 7 MP models, and looking in other directions for image quality improvements, like stabilization. Or is that wishful thinking on my part?

[RobertJ]

As an owner of what I consider to also be, an all-purpose camera, the 20D, (even without 8fps), I'm glad the high-res Kodak cameras are available as an option.  Who knows, I may need a camera one day to do the job of a 1Ds2 - at half the price!  The job, of course, would probably be some type of special-purpose, as mentioned above (landscape/studio settings).

T-1000

[Quentin]

The Kodaks are superb photographic tools.   I use a 14nx and regard it as, in many respects, the finest camera I have ever owned.

1600 ISO?  personally, I couldn't care less.    8FPS?  who on earth needs it.

But they are still haunted by the appalling marketing blunders from the early 14n days.   For many uses there is nothing to touch them below P25 prices.

Quentin

[mikebinok]

I'm keepin' my 1Ds (bought as a factory refurb when it was the hottest thing around).  But I have to admit that if I were starting over, and 8 megapix was absolutely not enough resolution, the Kodak would be a strong contender.

On the other hand, if 8 megapix was enough (as it is for 90% of the photographers out there, a 1D Mark II would be a better value, I think.  Though a 20D would be an even better value, unless I really needed ultrawide regularly!

Different photographers will reach different conclusions on what's best for their needs.  Which is as it should be!  I don't own a Kodak, but I hope Kodak does release the alleged 20 megapix upgrade, and that it totally kicks the 1Ds Mk2's butt.  Not because I don't like Canon (I have an almost 100% Canon shop) but because if Kodak moves ahead, I will benefit with better Canon bodies and lower costs!  :-)

[John Camp]

I have a couple of Kodak SLRs (the nx and the SLRn). They are 14 megapixel full-frame SLRs built on a Nikon body. As any of the Canon or Nikon fanatics will tell you, they have their limitations. I personally don't care for the ergonomics of the things, but that's a personal taste.

They do not do well at high ISOs, or in low-light shooting; they are great in the mid-range. They are not especially fast, so if you want to rip off 8 fps, then they are not for you.

However, if you are a landscape or studio photographer, and use either Nikon or Canon glass, they will make photos that absolutely match the 1DsMII and (from what I've seen) the Nikon D2x...and if you carefully read the pro forums, you will find quite a bit of testimony that they are actually *better* on things like skin tones. The RAW files are very easy to clean up with Photoshop, when necessary.

Kodak has done a lot of work to improve the originally faulty cameras, and the improvements are continuing.

The best thing: with the current rebate, a new body costs $3500.

Since my "work" photography is done only in daylight or in studio conditions, I'm fine with the Kodaks: they also serve as a kind of "place holder" for my Nikon lenses until the Nikon-Canon shootout stabilizes and prices start to come down. I fully expect to upgrade to a Nikon in the next couple of years -- the next iteration of the D cameras, the D3x. It would work the same way for holders of Canon lenses, since there is a Canon-mount Kodak.

This might not appeal to latest-and-best equipment freaks, but if you mostly want to take photographs with your equipment, rather than talk about specs, these cameras are definately worth a look.

JC

[etmpasadena]

I would just say that 8fps at 3200 ISO isn't 'general purpose' photographic use. It's specialized professional photography.

Anyway, the original poster's comments are correct. If your work fits into the Kodak performance envelope it's a good buy at 3500 dollars. Also, the idea that you need 'good light' is wrong as well, as all the twilight and dusk landscape photos taken with these cameras will attest to.

[John Camp]

I really wasn't trying to start an argument; I agree that the Kodaks have limitations. However, the Kodaks perform well in about the same range as general-use film cameras once did, and people as long ago as 1999 used to do fairly well with those cameras (I know it's hard to remember that far back.) The only place I ever used ASA 1600 and 3200 film was in museums where I was shooting archaeological artifacts behind glass with an F5; those ASA ratings were great for that, but, frankly, the grain was heavy and the color was not good; and since a wide variety of lighting was used even in the same museums, the lack of a white balance with film cameras was a major problem. The Kodaks solve most of that. While I would not doubt for a minute that there are some Canons that would be better (because of better high ASA response) I would tend to consider those to be the specialized uses, not the Kodak's range...In fact, the nominal Kodak ASA of 160 is close to the Kodak Gold films ASA 200, the film Kodak advertised as their general purpose film...

Eventually, as I said, I will upgrade, but the new Nikon specs suggest that for my purposes (daylight and studio) changing now wouldn't give me much. One more iteration would...

I confess not to know much about Canon. My son shoots a 1Ds and likes it okay, but still shoots more 6x9 film, scanned with a Nikon 9000, than Canon digital. For me to change to Canon would cost a fortune in new lenses (plural of lens), new flash stuff, etc. So like I said, the Kodaks are fine for me now, and would be fine for a fairly large group of people, if they knew about them. If somebody is in the Nikon system, a Kodak would save them some $1500 over a D2X, or $4500 if they are in the Canon system over a 1DSMII -- not inconsiderable amounts of money.

All of this is true, of course, only if the highest resolution is needed, for, example, printing large landscape or studio photos. For most other kinds of work, printed in sizes up to what...somebody else would be better at this than I am...about 11 x 14 old-style, the 8 meg Canons would certainly be more flexible and the resolution differences would be pretty much imperceptible.

IMHO, of course.

JC

[Jonathan Wienke]

Higher sensor speeds clearly add some convenience and more opportunities, but for some,that is a minor factor, not worth the several thousand extra dollars.

But we're not talking several thousand dollars, we're talking <$300 if 8MP is acceptable resolution.

[Jonathan Wienke]

Well, like I said before, if you need the extra megapixels and low ISO is not an unacceptable limitation (like studio + strobe work or daylight landscapes) then the Kodaks do make sense as a special-purpose tool. But if 8MP is enough and you want to be able to use ISO 1600 or 3200 or shoot at 8FPS, then spend the extra $300 and get a 1D-MkII. For the stuff I do, the Canon makes much more sense. For others, The Kodak may be a perfectly acceptable choice. It depends on what you do and how much you want to spend.

[Murph]

I like the Kodak DCS Pro/n, but have heard it damnned across the net, and that scared me off of it (plus the cost).  I am glad to see at least one positive review.  I do mostly landscape photography.

[Murph]

I think that the Kodaks keep Nikon and Canon somewhat honest.  Kinda like AMD vs Intel.

[Jonathan Wienke]

1600 ISO?  personally, I couldn't care less.    8FPS?  who on earth needs it.

That's fine for you, but I shoot about 80% of my work at ISO 1600 or 3200--indoor concerts & events where flash is discouraged or forbidden. As for 8FPS, don't knock it till you've tried it. It's totally unnecessary when shooting rocks or barns or trees, but for sports or small children or event candids, it's amazingly handy.