kodak slr/c vs eos1ds mkii

[SSA]

apart from phisical disability. i mean cheap body material of kodak. is there any comparsion between foto/portrait quality, maybe using 85 f1.2 lens

thank you!

[jhankins]

My take on this is that the Kodak does not have the sensor filters so moire and color artifacts are more common. I've heard that noise is a greater problem with this camera as well. And in looking at some of the example photos I've seen, including those that Kodak posts on their webstie, noise is obvious in the shadow areas, take a look for yourself.

I've a neighbor who picked a DCS/C a couple months ago who said he is happy with it but then again, he primarily shoots in a studio with a medium format and a scanning back so I don't think he really uses it all that much. He also doesn't do the type of photography I do so it may suit him for his purposes.

I'm opting for the 1DS mark II as low light performance, and bit depth is important to me as well as build quality. The price is painful but I'm going to do it. Some day, perhaps I'll have an opportunity to post side by side shot comparrisons if my neighbor will cooporate. :) (and if I can find one that I can buy....drats I'm tired of the out of stock sign on BHPhoto :) Hey Canon, if you're reading this, send more cameras to BHPHOTO!!! :)

[Longwatcher]

Ignoring for the moment that I went with the Canon 1DsMkII. I would have gone for the Kodak SLR/c over the 1Ds, if they had not announced the 1DsMII before November.

The reason, I mostly shoot studio under controlled lighting. In those situations the only issue is FPS for which I percieved the Kodak as being at my minimum requirement.

The difference in terms of prints at best ISO in the studio should be minimal between the Kodak SLR/c and the Canon 1Ds/1DsMkII. In this case the one with the most pixels will produce a slightly larger print, but they all should produce an outstanding 16"x24" print with no problem.

As to noise, moire and ISO; the Kodak's internal processing does absolutly the minimum it has to to get the image into something a photographer can use. At that point everything can be corrected by software. Canon on the other hand does a few things which technically could be considered software enhancement of the image whether you want it or not. However it is most people's judgement that Canon did what we would have wanted done anyway first off, so only an image scientist might care how it comes out of the Kodak over the Canon.

At ISO 160 it has been reported that the Kodak took better pictures then the Canon 1Ds due to the higher resolution. At higher ISO the Kodak starts going down hill rapidly. However, the Canon 1DsMkII should be taking better pictures then the Kodak (again due to higher resolution (without hitting the SNR limits)). I don't know of any direct comparison though

So in order, my choice for a studio camera (for PJ/sports go 1DM2 or 20D)
Canon 1DsMK II
Kodak SLR/c
Canon 1Ds
Canon 20D
Canon 10D
everything else

Just my opinion,