Kodak's Canon Mount DSLR ...

[Digital Prophet]

Has anyone else been reading about the new Kodak SLR/c (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0403/04031802kodakslrc.asp)?

In case you haven't heard, this new DSLR from Kodak comes in two models. The SLR/c uses the Canon mount and the SLR/n uses the Nikon mount. This is a 14MP DSLR with a 1x image sensor! I read a review of the SLR/n and I have to admit that I was very impressed. This camera has a 1.9fps burst rate up to 19 frames. That might not seem so impressive until you realize that is 19 frames at 14MP each in the buffer! But what really got my toes curling was the price: $4,500!

At that price with a full size image sensor and 14MP I think it is safe to say that unless this camera turns out to be super ultimate complete crap in practical use Kodak has just stolen ALL of the thunder from the 1Ds Mark II.

I know that when the time comes for me to upgrade I know that this Kodak is going to get some serious attention from me. And probably alot of other Canon users.

- Digital Prophet -

[timmyquest]

This is nothing new actually. It has been around for quiet some time. From what i've read from reviews and other people, outside of the studio this camera is rather disapointing.

[evilenglishman]

it hasn't been around that long.
The canon version is reletively new - it was only announced in March of this year.


Conclusion - Pros

* Very high resolution, but requires careful processing to deliver full potential
* Excellent dynamic range with over one stop of extra data in RAW and ERI-JPEG images
* Improved color response, more vivd and 'punchy' than the DCS-14n
* Ability to produce very sharp lower resolution images (very crisp six megapixel images)
* Full frame 35 mm size sensor, offers excellent wide angle shooting
* ERI-JPEG offers 'RAW like' image recovery for overexposed images
* On-screen histogram displays extended dynamic range
* Job Tracker / IPTC support in-camera
* Lightweight and high capacity battery pack
* Dual storage (Compact Flash & Secure Digital / MMC), although SD proved to be slow
* Low noise at ISO 160, higher noise from ISO 400 upwards
* Good image buffering and write speeds for RAW files, considerably slower for JPEG
* Has RAW+JPEG capability (even split by media format)
* Supplied neck and hand strap
* Firewire (IEEE 1394) connectivity with remote computer control
* GPS data support via serial port
* Voice annotation feature (built-in mic)
* Excellent RAW conversion software (DCS Photo Desk 4)
* The only current third party digital SLR with a Canon lens mount
* The likelihood that things will improve due to Kodak's constant firmware update policy
* Value for money (you get a lot of resolution for your money)


Conclusion - Cons

* Moiré at resolution limits
* Green color cast introduced by Lens Optimization option
* High ISO noise levels (more so at slow shutter speeds, higher ISO's)
* Intrusive noise reduction (which can not be disabled)
* Various performance related issues:
o Slow startup time (6 seconds or more)
o Slow JPEG encoding / write times (15 seconds)
o Slow record review (6 seconds for RAW, 14 seconds for JPEG)
o Poor continuous shooting performance (1.66 fps, over a minute to write a burst)
o Poor SD / MMC slot performance (in some cases twice as slow as CF)
* Camera system still in 'two halves' (photo / digital)
* No direct control of contrast and color saturation
* Must shoot a RAW to take a manual WB reading
* Poor automatic white balance with flash (best to manually select Flash WB)
* Poor ergonomic design, feels very bulky, uncomfortable vertical hand grip
* Constant firmware updates ('not quite finished')


Overall conclusion

When I first heard of the SLR/n (the Nikon mount version of the SLR/c which was announced before it) I was excited that Kodak would have taken the criticisms leveled at the DCS-14n and implemented a raft of fixes. Unfortunately many of the major bugbears I (and many owners) had with that camera haven't really been addressed in the SLR/n or SLR/c. As a professional digital SLR it still feels slow, no anti-alias filter means moiré, there's the intrusive noise reduction and higher than average noise anywhere above ISO 400.

Throughout this review comparisons to the SLR/c have been with the Canon EOS-1Ds, the only camera with anywhere near the resolution and the only other camera with a full 35 mm size sensor. There is however an important difference between the SLR/c and EOS-1Ds, price, the SLR/c is some $3000 cheaper than the EOS-1Ds and while they're not really in the same league from a performance and build quality point of view if all you want is resolution you'd be foolish not to at least consider the SLR/c.

Get it right, shoot RAW, good light, low to medium ISO's and be careful about the development of your RAW images and you really can get some mind-blowing good resolution with rewarding image quality attributes (good dynamic range, good color). That's just where the SLR/c fits in, it's certainly not a camera for everyone, it's not a point and shoot digital SLR, it's a camera for enthusiasts who are ready to work around its quirks and utilize it as a photographic tool.

If you are willing to learn how to use it, don't need sports camera performance and can live with the occasional artifact or three you're unlikely to be disappointed by the SLR/c. It's probably also worth noting that Kodak do have a habit of progressively improving their cameras with new firmware updates.

[Belmondo]

Actually, I've read a couple of the articles about it, and it looks interesting. Most reviewers didn't like the control layout/function---one actually referred to it as 'clunky.'

Still, it does represent an alternative to the 1Ds---higher resolution at a lower price. It will appeal to some people, although not a die-hard Canon devotee.

I guarantee Canon is paying attention.

[Digital Prophet]

I don't get it. If this is old news like you and someone on another board said then why is this DSLR showing up on the covers of photography magazines for September 2004?

I don't get it.
----------- Edit ---------------
Thanks for that in-depth info Evil. This gives a better around and about amount of info.

- Digital Prophet -

[sGu]

there is an in-depth review on www.dpreview.com by Phil Askey, even though it's recommended but from design, function, especially image quality and noise level, i wouldn't even think about it

Canon is just too good :D

[Belmondo]

I see only an extremely limited market for this camera, and that would be where the highest possible resolution is essential. That really describes very few of us. It also sounds like that additional resolution comes with certain limitations that might be unacceptable to the vast majority of would-be purchasers.

[PacAce]

I don't get it. If this is old news like you and someone on another board said then why is this DSLR showing up on the covers of photography magazines for September 2004?

I don't get it.
----------- Edit ---------------
Thanks for that in-depth info Evil. This gives a better around and about amount of info.

- Digital Prophet -

Could be the lag time between when the "news" actually hits the streets and the length of time it takes to do a review of the camera after getting their hands on it, do a layout of the magazine, print it and then distribute the magazine. Then you factor in the fact that a September issue is actually coming out in August, etc.

[Belmondo]

That's true. There were a couple magazines that published their 'in-depth' review of the Mk II just last month.

[Mark Kemp]

I think the magazines have finally picked it up because they are starting to ship now.

I haven't seen the Canon mount version, but I know a wedding photographer who uses the Nikon mount and gets some good results.

Oddly he usually only prints 10*8 inch and so turns the camera 'down' to only about 6mp pictures. He only bothers with full res if he expects to use it for a 20*16. So I guess he is also shooting JPEGs. I have to say that his results are very good and sell well enough, so it is a decent camera for that sort of work. Which is where I think Kodak intended it to be used and I guess the Canon fit is basically very similar.

[timmyquest]

I don't get it. If this is old news like you and someone on another board said then why is this DSLR showing up on the covers of photography magazines for September 2004?

I don't get it.
----------- Edit ---------------
Thanks for that in-depth info Evil. This gives a better around and about amount of info.

- Digital Prophet -

The internet is a wonderful thing. If canon wanted to announce something and wanted the world to know within 5 hours they would simply put it on their website. Magazines have to write, edit, publish, ship, sell.

Not only that but because of it's mediocre performance i don’t think it's all that popular. It feels to me like Kodak rushed this thing but maybe that’s just me.

Think about it the MKII is newer yet everyone knows about it. Something must be wrong there. I personally would rather spend half of that on a 10D (or it's replacement) then buy the Kodak. For a company with as rich a tradition as Kodak, and who a few years ago (maybe even less?) announced that they would no longer be making film cameras...i'd expect much more a camera from them, and i truly think that day will come.

You cant just throw a full frame sensor into a camera and expect the world to come running, there are many more factors. Them using Nikon/Canon mounts is a start though, at least they acknowledge that they cant win with that.

[Tom W]

Popular Photgraphy tested it in the latest issue (September, 2004). Basically, they said that if you need full frame image quality on a budget, this is a reasonable choice, but if you can "live with the slightly lower 8.2 MP resolution and are looking for an otherwise superior performing camera that's built like a tank......., then the 1D Mk II is the way to go".

[defordphoto]

I doubt this camera will win the hearts of a true Canonite. It's got problems and many issues to deal with when using it. The Canon 1Ds MKII will smoke it big time and in most cases the 1D MKII smokes it already.

This is a classic case that megapixels do not mean everything. Take into account this is a Sigma camera and that will sway most people from ever touching this camera with a 10-foot shutter finger.

What would bother me is the statement: "Works with most EOS lenses." That's a pretty broad statement.

This camera does not interest me in the least.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I don't get it. If this is old news like you and someone on another board said then why is this DSLR showing up on the covers of photography magazines for September 2004?

I don't get it.
----------- Edit ---------------
Thanks for that in-depth info Evil. This gives a better around and about amount of info.

- Digital Prophet -

Christ I just read an "Unveiled" article on the 1DMkII about two weeks ago...

This is several months after I had mine and about 6 months since the first on line reviews...

The magazines are waaaay behind the internet reviews most of the time.

[samdring]

But if the Kodak under review had been a Canon camera, how different would this thread have been?

[Belmondo]

What would bother me is the statement: "Works with most EOS lenses." That's a pretty broad statement.

Perhaps this is just a clumsy way of saying it won't work with the Rebel kit lens. If so, there would have been better ways to say it than to cast doubts over the entire Canon line of lenses. It would be good to know for anyone considering the Kodak.

[Belmondo]

But if the Kodak under review had been a Canon camera, how different would this thread have been?

Good point. On the other hand, brand loyalty can be forgiven. It's no less irrational than devotion to a local sports team.

[Tom W]

But if the Kodak under review had been a Canon camera, how different would this thread have been?

And had this been a Kodak enthusiast forum, how different would it have been?

[Jon]

One interesting point in the Pop. Photo review - they said Kodak had a license from Canon for EF lens and EX flash technology. May be that Canon will license other people to build compatible bodies and not lenses, or may be that they just got it wrong. Hmmmm . . . .

[Canuck]

Back in Dec, 2003 I got to handle a Kodak Pro 14N and to me it just plain felt wierd, even after havin a 10D w/ Big Ed for almost 8 months. It seemed to me that you would need a lot bigger hands that I have to make it work. It also was a clumsy feeling setup. It seemed to lack the intuitive setup that Canon has and Nikon has. It was a little clumsy at first trying to undo 5 years of Canon stuff as I Nikon shooter and I discussed the 10D vs D70. We swapped just to see what the other was like and well, fwiw, the setup isn't too bad on the Nikon; it seemed really bad on the Pro 14N. That would take some getting used to.

[defordphoto]

But if the Kodak under review had been a Canon camera, how different would this thread have been?

Crap is crap, no matter who makes it. Canon has been slammed here before on several issues, the original 10D focusing issues, the sometimes poor customer service at their repairs centers to name a few. They're not perfect and we're more than happy to point that out to everyone. ;)

[defordphoto]

Back in Dec, 2003 I got to handle a Kodak Pro 14N and to me it just plain felt wierd, even after having a 10D w/ Big Ed for almost 8 months.

That's exactly the way I felt about the MKII.

Not anymore...

[timmyquest]

But if the Kodak under review had been a Canon camera, how different would this thread have been?

Crap is crap, no matter who makes it. Canon has been slammed here before on several issues, the original 10D focusing issues, the sometimes poor customer service at their repairs centers to name a few. They're not perfect and we're more than happy to point that out to everyone. ;)

I get my sources on it's poor workings from actual users. Thats when you know the problems are real considering people who spend money on things try and make the crap into good.

http://www.outbackphoto.com/reviews/equipment/kodak_SLRc/Kodak_SLRc.html

Reviews like this just arnt that impressive to me.

I think many people will tell you your not supose to buy this camera to take it to the race track. But why spend the same amount of cash on this camera when the MKII does a better job both at the track and in the studio. Just because of the pixles? I'll pass.

[Longwatcher]

Although I am waiting to see what Canon comes up with at/by Photokina 2004, I have been considering the Kodak for my Full frame needs.

For me from my reserach, it works out to the Kodak will be good in the studio or under controlled lighting. It is useless as a general purpose camera. I always shoot in RAW so problems inherent in the jpeg processing are not my problem (which seems to be the bulk of the issues).

The frame rate is poor, but based on my frame rate when shooting a model, I am not anticipating the Kodak causing too much problem from the slower frame rate. I do anticipate getting more frustrated when I hit the buffer limit on the camera though (although less likely due to FPS and larger buffer).

From what I have read when shot in RAW mode and post processed correctly, it will take superior images to the Canon 1Ds at lower ISO (like at 160).

So overall it meets some of my needs for a camera, the biggest of which is a full frame camera I can afford. If I thought it was a bad as the earlier 14n, I would not be even considering it, but Kodak has made enough improvements for me to consider it at the price, since I want a FF camera.

Now if Canon does come out with a 1.3x version of the 10D and it is compatable with a 10-20mm lens people have rumoured at. I may get that instead. Also if the price of the expected 1Ds MII and its capabilities show a significant difference, then I will keep saving for that. If however, the 10D upgrade is a 1.6, there is no point in my buying that, don't need it. If the 1Ds upgrade does not have a significant wow factor compared to the current 1Ds at a reasonable price. Then I will use my money and get the Kodak.

Just depends on what you shoot, I shoot models in the studio and the Kodak should work for my FF camera needs.

If I shot a lot of fast action stuff or in low light, the Kodak would be useless for my purposes. Now the 14n was useless.

Just my opinion (and in this case maybe my money).

[Belmondo]

Tim:
I was going to send you a PM to make sure you saw this thread. Now I don't have to.

[defordphoto]

Great post Tim. The Kodak has a limited audience. If you're in the studio shooting portraits then it'll serve you quite handsomely. However, we all have to wonder what Canon has up their sleeve for the 1Ds replacement.

Photokina is just around the corner and then all these silly rumors will abate.

Word (rumor) has it that Canon will be making official announcement(s) this week.

[robertwgross]

The internet is a wonderful thing. If canon wanted to announce something and wanted the world to know within 5 hours they would simply put it on their website.

Or, if they really want to announce something, all they have to do is to leak the announcement to a few key individuals, and the world would know in about four hours. Who is in charge of rumor control today?

---Bob Gross---

[blacktape]

I think you guys will be shocked when you read the amount of time the camera needs to save files to the CF. Even when you're shooting studio, sometimes the models are moving and you want to have multiple shot capability.

[Tom W]

The internet is a wonderful thing. If canon wanted to announce something and wanted the world to know within 5 hours they would simply put it on their website.

Or, if they really want to announce something, all they have to do is to leak the announcement to a few key individuals, and the world would know in about four hours. Who is in charge of rumor control today?

---Bob Gross---

IF that werre true, one would think that Canon had about 15 DSLR's coming out next month. :P

Actually, I'm in charge of rumors, and I'm authorized to tell you that the 20D is no longer a rumor. Of course, the news of it not being a rumor might be a rumor.

[timmyquest]

The internet is a wonderful thing. If canon wanted to announce something and wanted the world to know within 5 hours they would simply put it on their website.

Or, if they really want to announce something, all they have to do is to leak the announcement to a few key individuals, and the world would know in about four hours. Who is in charge of rumor control today?

---Bob Gross---

Yeah like the guy at "my local photo shop"

:lol:

[Digital Prophet]

Well I guess that I look like a chump. I thought I was posting something new and interesting.

But it seems that I was just a tool of the man. Sorry.

- Digital Prophet -

[timmyquest]

No worries, it's sparked a well debated thought provoking thread. Those are far and few on more active boards. :p

[defordphoto]

Well I guess that I look like a chump. I thought I was posting something new and interesting.

But it seems that I was just a tool of the man. Sorry.

- Digital Prophet -

Heck no. Don't apologize. This has been fun! 8)