Has anyone ever used the Kodak 14mp full frame camera for Nikon mount? Could anyone tell me about quality? I shoot mostly Canon, both film and digital, but am curious about this camera--if I picked one up used, it would be a cheaper way of using Nikon lenses in native mount on full frame--I only like full frame, not cropped, and buying a full frame Nikon body is just way too expensive for me to pick up for kicks.
Why not pick up a Nikon film camera? There is an FM2n on the buy/sell forum - don't know antying about the seller just mentioning it. I shoot the FM2n and love it!
I think the gist of the thread is that the OP is looking for FX-performance without paying for an FX digital body. The Nikon FM2N, while full-frame, isn't probably under consideration by the OP as it's digital they're after - not analogue.
FWIW, I have two FM2Ns and think they are the cat's meow.
I had the Kodak SLRc and when I made the move to Nikon, I got myself a Kodak SLRn.
Yes it is slow and takes about 4-6 seconds to start up. And it is quite old and it is "only 14MP" (Compared to 21 and 24MP available today). However, with the latest firmware update (5.4.9) and the fact that you get to use some impressive Nikon FX lenses on it, you can not go wrong with the SLRn for current market prices.
Shutter speed is maxed out at 1/6000th and flash sync is 1/180th (I think).
The other interesting thing about the Kodak is the ability to shoot at ISO 50. Base ISO on the Kodak is ISO160.
The skin tones and colors are really very good. The resolution is very nice and the fact that it does not have an AA filter gives you very crisp sharp files. Those who own one usually tend not to sell them. RAW files can be processed with most any software, but I find Bibble Pro works very well on these files.
High ISO noise is where this camera falls behind - compared to today's current DSLR's. Don't bother comparing the SLRn to the D300 or the D700 - That would just be silly. However, you can get very clean files up to ISO 320 and if you expose just right, a very high quality 8x10" ISO 800 file can be achieved quite easily.
The built in flash does come in handy sometimes.
I have my Sigma 12-24mm mounted on my SLRn 90% of the time. Other times, the Sigma 50mm f1.4 or the 24mm Shift get used with the SLRn. Beats the heck out of spending 2k+ on the D700 or the $3.5k on the D3 or $8k on the D3X - depending on what you want to do with it.
I just wish I could install a Katz eye or split prizm/microprizm screen on it - maybe in the future.
pascal03 wrote:
I just wish I could install a Katz eye or split prizm/microprizm screen on it - maybe in the future.
You can. I actually have a better screen for it -- manualy focusing with the stock screen if virtually impossible. However, the screen is not readily user replaceable. I tried and now have to send it in for repair. ;-( It's been a while now. I need to get around to sending it in. Tiny bit if plastic that secure's the screen hold-down spring (which isn't readily visible to the user) snapped. This really could have been better made. Again, if Kodak based this camera on a higher-end Nikon it would have been a better, more usable camera (e.g., the meter doesn't work with non-chipped lenses).
Yes, the person who made the comment about me being interested in a digital rather than film body is correct--I am happy with my film bodies (a Pentax and a Canon), but only have a Canon digital, and I think having a digital full frame that is native for Nikon lenses might be a nice twist. And yes, the price when these come up used is appealing. The negatives that everyone mentions on this camera (I looked at some old reviews, they always mention them also) is that it can't shoot fast and poor performance at high ISO. Well, I usually shoot on a tripod and work slowly, and I almost never shoot above 200 ISO. So maybe this would be a good camera for me to play around with. One question from the previous comments, though--you can't replace the screen yourself? Or you can replace it, but to do so you have to send it in?
Go for it if image quality is your main concern. I have a Kodak SLR/c and a SLR/n, and a new Canon 5DII. At base ISO, I much prefer the output from my Kodak over the Canon. Color is better and the images have a more realistic look (pop, contrast, whatever...). The base ISO is 160, compared to 100 for the Canon. The Kodak's are not for high ISO though...
The 14-24G works great with the SLR/n, as do the other high quality Nikon mount lenses. Here's one from the Kodak SLR/n and 14-24G @ 14mm:
I recently picked up a Kodak SLR/n from a fellow FM and I am very satisfied w/ the purchase.
I agree w/ the points on the AA filter, body design, VF, High ISO. One area that surprised me is Photo desk and how easy it is to use and quick on my 24" iMac. If you pick one up, stick to Lexar cards as others have reported problems w/ other brands and update to latest firmware for larger cards sizes. Also, the batteries aren't the best so keep that in mind. Good luck.
It appears Katz Eye does offer a split prizm screen and installation for the SLRn. I am too much of a wimp to mess around with a camera or a lens.... especially when such items are getting harder to replace
I think I may end up sending my SLRn to Katz eye for a screen / installation.
Just FYI - I came across a brand new in box Kodak DSC 420 for $150 at a local store today. The sales person was telling me this old bulky kodak was selling for $5000+ at one time - maybe higher. Right beside it was a brand new Nikon D1H for $450. Lets see - 2.7MP from 5+ years ago or a 10MP/12MP/20MP from today
Yep, they have great color and edge accutance. For landscape photography I really struggle with the colors from my 5DII. Here's another from the SLR/n and Nikon 14-24G:
Even better than the base ISO of 50 is the long exposure mode, I use it for still lifes in studio and it gives everything else I own or have had in the studio a run for the money.
The only thing that will give me a cleaner image is my Dicomed Field Pro scan back.
The base ISO of the Kodak SLR/x is 160. ISO 160 is so much better than ISO 100 on my Canon 5DII - it is not funny. It can go down to ISO6, where the results are superb, and no ND filter required
