ClubSNAP Preview of Kodak DCS 14n Digital Camera

[Jed]

I've already stated several times within this forum that in reality in the long term, a full frame sensor is probably a handicap. I see absolutely no drawback to having a 1.5x sensor aside from having to purchase a 12-24DX, and would love to hear from anyone with a disadvantage. On the other hand I can think of plenty of advantages.

I believe the camera will use the CAM900 sensor, although I am not sure and a CAM1300 sensor would be a bonus as far as I'm concerned. But I do not consider this a major factor even given the work I do. I have used a D100 with screwdriver lenses for work, and while it is not ideal, it shouldn't be an excuse for not being able to deliver good pictures either. And with AF-S lenses there is very little to fault with the CAM900 module. If you need it for even more exacting autofocusing performances than me then fair play.

Larry, a lot of your questions can be answered by hopping over to Kodak's website. I don't have the link offhand and I don't have the bandwidth to dig it out, but www.kodak.com and then navigating to "Professional Photography" and onwards to the DCS 14n will get you the required information.

Questions for Kodak?

[1] Why was the image size dropped from 4536x3024 to 4500x3000?

[2] Is the frame rate 1.7fps as widely circulated, or (up to) 2.5fps as stated in the camera's manual?

[3] Any theories or explanations as to the camera's apparently poor capture of hair detail, as per the pre-production samples on the Kodak website?

[4] Can you confirm or deny that the samples on the Japanese website (http://www.i-inc.jp/DCS-Pro14n/14n.html) are indeed DCS Pro 14n samples, or fakes? (It has embedded EXIF information which you should be able to examine) In particular the comparison images with the EOS1Ds and the sample of the painted mask.

Thanks!

 

[chgoh]

I think whether this 1.5X phenomenon is an advantage or disadvantage is really personal preference/taste.

As the sensor resolution goes higher, I think it is inevitable to increase the sensor physical dimensions towards full 35mm size. With the current smaller than full frame sensors, I guess it's like having a teleconverter stuck on the camera permanently, relative to the lens that are designed for 35mm.

Think about it, would it happen one day, that the sensor grow past the standard 35mm size? Then instead of a focal length multiplier, we have a divisor, e.g. 0.8X. So, we wide than usual view? I think this would not happen, because all the existing lens would have image circles for the 35mm frame.

My personal preference is for the sensor to go back to the 35mm standard which I used to, as your perspective/perception is already tuned to 35mm. I could always use a teleconverter when needed; either that or crop.

Just my $0.02 worth.

 

[Jed]

Originally posted by chgoh
I think whether this 1.5X phenomenon is an advantage or disadvantage is really personal preference/taste.

Well you've stated your personal preference, I'm still waiting for a tangible disadvantage to having a 1.5x sensor. Ultimately it comes down to inertia and resistance to change.

 

[Larry]

Originally posted by Jed
Larry, a lot of your questions can be answered by hopping over to Kodak's website. I don't have the link offhand and I don't have the bandwidth to dig it out, but www.kodak.com and then navigating to "Professional Photography" and onwards to the DCS 14n will get you the required information.

actually i did (you know lah, i'm such a web geek), the specs there was quite sketchy beyond the ones Simon posted here already.

anyway, for those interested, the link is here.
Kodak website link to the DCS Pro 14n Digital Camera

man i can't wait to try out the handling on this...

 

[Wolfgang]

Originally posted by Larry

man i can't wait to try out the handling on this...

Sekali they tell you, see only, no touch.... :devil: :bsmilie:

 

[cyrilng]

Originally posted by Larry
actually i did (you know lah, i'm such a web geek), the specs there was quite sketchy beyond the ones Simon posted here already.

anyway, for those interested, the link is here.
Kodak website link to the DCS Pro 14n Digital Camera

man i can't wait to try out the handling on this...

Me too:dent:

Even the specs & manual pdf. doesn't state what CAM is used but I thot I saw it somewhere previously on dpreview:dunno:

ah here it is - http://www.dpreview.com/news/0209/02092304kodakdcs14n.asp

 

[Simon]

All the above Questions had been redirected to Kodak.

Will post the reply from Kodak once I get them.

 

[Larry]

Originally posted by cyrilng
Even the specs & manual pdf. doesn't state what CAM is used but I thot I saw it somewhere previously on dpreview:dunno:

ah here it is - http://www.dpreview.com/news/0209/02092304kodakdcs14n.asp

argh...

"Auto focus
• Nikon Multi-CAM900 module"

what a bummer, thought the AF would be faster.

 

[Dagger]

Originally posted by Jed
1.5x sensor.

Nice piece of equipment. Would have been very tempting and created some decision problems if I hadn't my D1x yet. But thanks to some leads from Simon, and other friends who helped me on making the purchase possible before the CNY for the shoots almost immediately after.

One of the main reasons for my D1x yearn was the 1.5x that is handy. Other than that it's a unit with a good feel and weight.

The 14n would be a real beauty for Studio work and other shoots such as weddings. I really like the idea of dual slots and its resolution. Honestly, haven't had the chance to play with one yet, but am concerned about the weight as a balance. Had some serious problems with the D100 + grip, until Larry came up with the idea of being the Graffer Tape King taping almost everything that was in sight that is photography related. But then it was a bit late as my unit was rid of.

Kodak is generally rather good at putting in the eletronics to other manufacturers goods and can sometimes achieve outstandly superb results.

Can't wait to get me hands on the 14n for a trial! Yee-ha!

 

[Larry]

just took a close look @ the DCS 14n sample pixs posted on the Kodak Pro cameras website and i must say, the details and colours are very impressive, esp the hi-key one. if any1 gets this, can forget about medium format liao. :thumbsup:

 

[oeyvind]

Simon: did someone hack into your webspace or you did that on purpose:

http://simon.clubsnap.org/

 

[ckiang]

Originally posted by oeyvind
Simon: did someone hack into your webspace or you did that on purpose:

http://simon.clubsnap.org/

I think it's intentional. Look at it carefully, it's YOUR harddisk, not simon's.

Regards
CK

 

[oeyvind]

muhahahha.... like real.

 

[Jed]

Originally posted by Larry
and i must say, the details and colours are very impressive, esp the hi-key one. if any1 gets this, can forget about medium format liao. :thumbsup:

I think you look at your wonky camera a bit too long liao. Either that, or you already set your mind on buying the camera? Cause the samples are in serious need of improvement before I'd consider them for professional use, in particular, note the exceedingly poor rendition of the hair; the details seem to fuse into each other, as though an excessive softening filter has been applied, although Kodak's latest samples have apparently had the noise reduction function turned off.

 

[Simon]

Reply from Business Partner of Kodak Professional Singapore: Mr. Victor Lee

1. Why was the image size dropped from 4536x3024 to 4500x3000?
   
   It is not the image size dropped
   Basically they are Total Pixels, Effective Pixels and Recorded Pixels
   
   
2. Is the frame rate 1.7fps as widely circulated, or (up to) 2.5fps as stated in the camera's manual?
   
   Our spec is "up to 1.7fps". I think 2.5fps is F80 film camera's spec, not Kodak DCS 14n.
   
3. Any theories or explanations as to the camera's apparently poor capture of hair detail, as per the pre-production samples on the Kodak website?
   
   The shipping camera will be much better than PPM, so you may be disappoint about our samples that you can see on Kodak's web. But thanks for the lateset firmware many issues have gone, and we get much better image quality than samples on Kodak web site.
   
   
4. Can you confirm or deny that the samples on the Japanese website (http://www.i-inc.jp/DCS-Pro14n/14n.html) are indeed DCS Pro 14n samples, or fakes? (It has embedded EXIF information which you should be able to examine) In particular the comparison images with the EOS1Ds and the sample of the painted mask.
   
   Those samples on http://www.i-inc.jp/DCS-Pro14n/14n.html are Kodak ERI-JPEG files. The ERI-JPEG file can only be made by Kodak DCS camera inside. There is no way we can make a ERI-JPEG file by a computer software. So those samples as indeed DCS Pro 14n samples, you can try it by install a ERI FFM onto your Photoshop and open those ERI-JPEG files. You will find ERI window appears to let you control EV, Click Balance, etc. I know why you ask this question since these images' sharpness is better than samples we put on Kodak web site. There are two reason: One is the 14n's ERI JPEG is made directly from sensor's data, not like before that made (in-process) from DCR file. SO It is a first hand JPG, not second hand
   
   
   JPG: means better image quality than before. The another reason is the ERI JPEG in our current 14n PPM is a unready function, we don't finalize the latest noise reduction for ERI Function now. SO you could see higher dark noise and higher sharpness in these Japanese samples. But Rochester do not allow us to show ERI-JPEG to our customer since the color still not fine tune yet to match the DCR's color.
   
   Japanese is out of control, they never like Rochester's suggestion
   

 

[cyrilng]

Next questions -

1. Pricing & availability?

2. CAM900 or CAM1300?

 

[Simon]

Originally posted by cyrilng
Next questions -

1. Pricing & availability?

2. CAM900 or CAM1300?

1: $8500+- available early March

2: Nikon Multi-CAM900 module"

 

[Larry]

Originally posted by Jed
I think you look at your wonky camera a bit too long liao. Either that, or you already set your mind on buying the camera?

kekeke... take your pick. but seriously, i think it's my wonky camera pixs. aiyah you know lah... no need to elaborate further.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by Larry
kekeke... take your pick. but seriously, i think it's my wonky camera pixs. aiyah you know lah... no need to elaborate further.

i may disagree with Jed on the need for full frame issue, but i agree with him at least on image quality - the sample images issued so far are horrible - just like a 14 megapixel version of a typical consumer camera CCD.......

i think Kodak needs a lot of work to get it up to speed.

Jed: i thnk i won the earlier argument for now, at least. i said the camera wun be out for at least months (that was in Nov?), the image quality is suspect and of untested quality (it is) and it isn't as cheap as wat many pple hope it will be (CK comes to mind ;P), and that the 1Ds with its pro body is probably a better deal.

let's see wat happens after they release it to market.....

 

[ckiang]

Originally posted by Red Dawn


i may disagree with Jed on the need for full frame issue, but i agree with him at least on image quality - the sample images issued so far are horrible - just like a 14 megapixel version of a typical consumer camera CCD.......

i think Kodak needs a lot of work to get it up to speed.

Jed: i thnk i won the earlier argument for now, at least. i said the camera wun be out for at least months (that was in Nov?), the image quality is suspect and of untested quality (it is) and it isn't as cheap as wat many pple hope it will be (CK comes to mind ;P), and that the 1Ds with its pro body is probably a better deal.

let's see wat happens after they release it to market.....

I am sure they will fix the image quality issues, if not already.

Any theories or explanations as to the camera's apparently poor capture of hair detail, as per the pre-production samples on the Kodak website?

The shipping camera will be much better than PPM, so you may be disappoint about our samples that you can see on Kodak's web. But thanks for the lateset firmware many issues have gone, and we get much better image quality than samples on Kodak web site.

Regards
CK