about | support
home
 


  Reviews by: mpal  

View profile View recent posts View reviews Add mpal to your Buddy List
Nikon 18mm f/2.8D AF Nikkor

1911NAS_180
Review Date: Oct 9, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: The lens is much improved from the early manual focus 18mm F/4 and 18mm F/3.5 versions. As a lens for the Nikon DSLR, it performs very effectively as a 27mm wide angle lens (35mm basis). Contrast and color is better than most zooms that cover this range. Sharp, with good glare control. Good at F/2.8, too.
Cons:
Lens hood does cause some light loss. I do not use it normally.

Nice second prime lens to have for general photography.


 
Kodak DCS Pro 14n

14n
Review Date: Jun 14, 2003 Recommend? no | Price paid: $4,795.00 | Rating: 2 

 
Pros: Too little for discussion.
Cons:
Camera has too much noise.Very poor color at ISO above 125 Does NOT image in aperture priority mode or manual for time exposures above 2 seconds. Can not shoot at any ISO. BLack frame results. All of Kodak's firmware fails to yield any image for exposures longer than 2 seconds. Forget fireworks, lightning (nature), special effects or low light level imaging with this camera. Even Kodak support admits to this serious limitation. Distraught that Kodak USER Manual suggests that exposures up to 30 seconds and beyond are possible. NOT so. Image sharpness is poor compared with all other NIkon, Fuji cameras using same lens, ISO and conditions for test. Even sharpening routines do NOT improve the 14n final image to acceptable levels. If I did not know how good my Nikkors were , I would think that the lens was poor. NOT SO.

I completely tested the Kodak 14n along side the Nikon D1X and D100.
I was disappointed to find that under no lighting conditions did the Kodak 14n outperform the other cameras. In fact, it did not even compare to the other cameras. I used a wide variety of Nikkor lens at various aperture settings, ISO value, camera settings.
As light levels approached low, ie. exposures were 1/15 sec or slower at wide open aperture, the Kodak 14n showed various (non repeatable results) images (all far less than acceptable compared to the other cameras used.)
At the 2 second point and beyond, totally balck frames wrere displayed. The R,G,B histogram values were all zero. Even exposures on very normal lit scenes that should have produced solid white (over exposed values) ouitputs yielded nothing...BLACK.
Color balance was not correct for many outdoor scenes either. In fact, un processed Nikon and Fuji results were superior to the best results I could obtain with the Kodak 14n.
I own every Nikkor lens produced from the mid-1950s for the Nikon F mount camera. I was very dissappointed that Kodak released such a poor example of a full frame (35mm) camera after waiting 6 more months since it s first sceduled release date.
Poor battery life. The "hype" that CMOS uses less battery current/voltage is not seen with the Kodak14n camera.

Furthermore, you would think that any manufacturing company (especially Kodak) would have fully tested and properly represented the camera's performance. If there were limitations, it should have been in BOLD print, on their web site as well as in their manual.
Final word: any full frame imaging device deserves a top of the line chasis. Kodak and future Nikon mount camera manufacturers should seriously consider the Nikon F5 as the top choice for a full frame (35mm format) digital device.