The current price of this camera (new) at major stores (B&H etc) is around $3500. Both this one and its Nikon sibling have had mixed reviews, possibly because they are naturally compared to the 1Ds, and more recently the 1Ds2 and even the 1D2. The price is actually lower than that of a new 1D2, which I suppose reflects the market's appraisal. There have also been rumours that Kodak is going to depart the DSLR market, which would leave the issue of ongoing support somewhat hanging in the air.
I've read the specs and the reviews, so I know this camera is not weatherproof, it's slower than the Canons, and that most people don't care for the shape of the vertical grip, but I'd be really interested in hearing opinions on this camera from anyone who has actually used one. Is it a dog or is it just not up to a head-on comparison with the Canon 1 series?
What is strange about this camera is that I have seen many comments by people who swear that output is incredible if it is used properly, but at the same time there is a shortage of full-size photos that back up that sort of praise.
At $3500 and with practically everything outsourced, I wonder how much money Kodak is losing when you factor in tech support and so forth.
The colors can be outstanding, that I can vouch for from what I've seen.
It is a no brainer. Typical sales prices of a mint condition 1DS are in that price range and a brand new 1DMK2 is only about $400 more than the price stated. Both Canon cameras are significantly better than the Kodak model.
Why don't yoyu take a look at this review over at the luminous landscape. It's a side-by-side between the Kodak and the 1Ds, written by a pro photographer more interested in ergonomics and results than technical detail. (the Kodak is roundly thrashed BTW).
Thanks for all inputs ...
Bearcat ... I suspect that sales have not been large. I'd guess there are probably 100+ canon 1 series out there for each dcs/c, so not surprising there are not too many pictures floating around.
Gdstaples ... all true, but I also wonder what a used Kodak would cost if it turned up? I can't justify even $3.5K right now, but I could justify about half that, and so I'd be comparing with a 20D rather than a 1 series.
steve_t ... I saw that review, and I'm aware of some or most of the Kodak's shortcomings. What I haven't got a handle on is whether I could live with them.
I dont see why Kodak just concentrates on the consumer d/SLR market insted of trying to make a "Pro" model. Clearly they are being shunned by pros who prefer the Nikon/Canon bodies... Kodak makes the sensors for many manufacturers so the picture quality cant be the problem...I personally think they should re-evaluate there designs and come up with a new style insted of trying to chop up a donar body and producing these monstrosities which they call a camera! If kodak designed a good looking original body and aimed it at the consumer/prosumer markets then they may have more sucess... The pricing of the DCS 14/c is good but the build quality and finish of the camera is what most ppl complain about.. Im shure that the picture quality is quite good expecally concidering its a Full framed sensor but as I said the design is what puts most ppl off.
I seriously considered the Kodak but decided no based on two specific reasons. Low light capability and I did not want to "learn" another camera body. I have played with it and was very impressed.
EOS20 wrote:
I dont see why Kodak just concentrates on the consumer d/SLR market insted of trying to make a "Pro" model. .
the simple anwser to this question is Profit and bottom line. Kodak made a Ton of money last year and is dominating in the consumer area because they are understanding that families do Not want to post process anything , they want to put their little card into a little printer and get great looking 4x6 and 5x7, Kodak was first to make this very seamless and they are reaping big time rewards, Kodak owns Croenow and they make the Leaf backs which are very popular in the pro market and are also making good money.
JohnLL wrote:
There have also been rumours that Kodak is going to depart the DSLR market, which would leave the issue of ongoing support somewhat hanging in the air.
I
What I ment Insted of abandoning the d/slr market why dosen't kodak concentrate on a new sector insted of the "Pro market" which they clearlly cannot compeate with Nikon and Canons pro models.
The DCS 14/c may not be the best in low light but for bright lit conditions and for long exposure shots it is very good.....Its the only d/slr to offer a ISO of 6!
Lowest ISO on a Canon d/slr is 50 on the 1 series cameras.
DPreview has a Kodak forum and about 2/3 of the post are rants & complaints about the Kodak. The other 1/3 are usually "I love my Kodak, but..."
In a studio with controlled lighting, I think it's fine. But if you want to use outdoors, on vacations, or as your general use camera; it doesn't sound nearly as promising.
They are focused on other markets and have all but abandoned their high-end sensor development and support for the professional photography market. They are focusing on other imaging markets for medical, sciences etc.
So the 18 mp chip that they have developed for the Pentax 645 digital is an example of them abandoning high end sensor development. You better start reading a few more digital photography pages.
I like mine. I'm no pro but I have had fun learning with this camera. I've had the D30, D60, 10D, 1D and the 20D. I really don't miss the 20D as much as I thought I would. The only thing I do miss is the speed and the high ISO. I'm planning to start doing more studio work but I have been using it more and more for everyday stuff.
It really seems like with the 20D I would just push a button and I had a picture no real thought behind it. ( a point and shoot with interchangeable lenses) With the Kodak I feel like I'm really learning how to take a better picture.
The things I really like about the camera.
1. The colors are great straight out of the camera. I really don't think I have had to mess with the colors on my shots.
2. Photodesk is very nice I rarely use Photoshop any more.
3. Very little post processing if any.
4. Super sharp shots a lot more keepers than I've had with any other camera if I get the exposure right.
5. The most detail that I've had with any camera that I've used. My crops were a lot more flexible with this camera. Some of my 100% cops looked better than a full frame of my D60 or 10D.
6. The Long exposure ISO 6 is great. Almost no noise.
7. It's full frame and I don't need super wide to be wide.
8. Comes with a wireless release.
9. It's light than the series 1.
The things I don't like about the camera.
1. If the exposure is not correct than the shot can look grainy.
2. Anything over ISO 400 looks like ISO 1600-3200 compared to the 20D.
3. The autofocus is a little slow. Takes longer to lock on. Low light is tough on autofocus if you don't have good glass.
4. The side shutter release is a little hard to get to. (nothing Major)
5. It does about 2-3 shot a second. I'm really not sure that's been a bad thing for me.
Here is one that I took with the camera. ISO 160 with a Sigma 180mm Macro at f3.5 shot in RAW saved to JPG in Kodak's Photodesk. Fullsize JPG almost 8meg !!
ISO 6 with a Canon 28-70mm at 70mm f13 shot in RAW saved to JPG in Kodak's Photodesk. Fullsize JPG almost 7meg
The context of the thread was 35mm not large format. In addition, the so called high-end markets of medium and large format are largely saturated and are actually in decline due to the accessibility of high-MP 35mm cameras at sub $8K prices. Canon and Nikon combine for almost 96% of the DSLR market share. It would be rather foolish for Kodak to be the leader in a declining market.
Kodak is properly focused on other less saturated, more profitable markets like commercial imaging, health imaging, commercial printing, display components (OLEDs), and consumer imaging.
Kodak currently as less than a 20% market share in the rapidly growing consumer digital point and shoot camera market while no other single company maintains more than a 24% market share. This is where Kodak will spend their R&D and marketing resources as this market has a large potential upside.
Duncan
Edited by gdstaples on Mar 18, 2005 at 04:13 AM GMT
Darren
Many thanks for info and congratulations on the pix. That rose would print at 24x36" without interpolation and stand up to scrutiny with a loupe! I'd really be interested in seeing some shots at higher ISO (800, 1600) just to see how bad (or not) they are. Also, by how much can you push and/or pull the exposure in RAW conversion without wrecking colors etc?
John
HeaVy wrote:
I like mine. I'm no pro but I have had fun learning with this camera. I've had the D30, D60, 10D, 1D and the 20D. I really don't miss the 20D as much as I thought I would. The only thing I do miss is the speed and the high ISO. I'm planning to start doing more studio work but I have been using it more and more for everyday stuff.
It really seems like with the 20D I would just push a button and I had a picture no real thought behind it. ( a point and shoot with interchangeable lenses) With the Kodak I feel like I'm really learning how to take a better picture.
The things I really like about the camera.
1. The colors are great straight out of the camera. I really don't think I have had to mess with the colors on my shots.
2. Photodesk is very nice I rarely use Photoshop any more.
3. Very little post processing if any.
4. Super sharp shots a lot more keepers than I've had with any other camera if I get the exposure right.
5. The most detail that I've had with any camera that I've used. My crops were a lot more flexible with this camera. Some of my 100% cops looked better than a full frame of my D60 or 10D.
6. The Long exposure ISO 6 is great. Almost no noise.
7. It's full frame and I don't need super wide to be wide.
8. Comes with a wireless release.
9. It's light than the series 1.
The things I don't like about the camera.
1. If the exposure is not correct than the shot can look grainy.
2. Anything over ISO 400 looks like ISO 1600-3200 compared to the 20D.
3. The autofocus is a little slow. Takes longer to lock on. Low light is tough on autofocus if you don't have good glass.
4. The side shutter release is a little hard to get to. (nothing Major)
5. It does about 2-3 shot a second. I'm really not sure that's been a bad thing for me.
Here is one that I took with the camera. ISO 160 with a Sigma 180mm Macro at f3.5 shot in RAW saved to JPG in Kodak's Photodesk. Fullsize JPG almost 8meg !!
ISO 6 with a Canon 28-70mm at 70mm f13 shot in RAW saved to JPG in Kodak's Photodesk. Fullsize JPG almost 7meg
Those are very impressive shots Darren...as lifelike as any shots ever shown on this site. The Pro/C is a helluva fine camera and a bargain at that price...You know how to use it to it's full advantage. Screw the *morons* who want to see what it *can't* do...keep showing what it *can* do, and that's produce incredible results at low ISOs.
Best,
rebel300 wrote:
Those are very impressive shots Darren...as lifelike as any shots ever shown on this site. The Pro/C is a helluva fine camera and a bargain at that price...You know how to use it to it's full advantage. Screw the *morons* who want to see what it *can't* do...keep showing what it *can* do, and that's produce incredible results at low ISOs.
Best,
The Reb
I'd argue that knowing what a camera can't do is rather important. It doesn't necessarily stop you from buying it, providing that this overlaps with what you don't want to do. On the other hand forking out that kind of money only to discover that it's unsuitable for something that you bought it for ...
steve_t wrote:
I'd argue that knowing what a camera can't do is rather important. It doesn't necessarily stop you from buying it, providing that this overlaps with what you don't want to do. On the other hand forking out that kind of money only to discover that it's unsuitable for something that you bought it for ...
You'd argue just to argue...The Pro C and the 1Ds show at their best at low ISOs...that's been well known since either camera has hit the market.
Pretty easy to research a product that has been on the market for as long as the Pro/C...
I personally woulden't mind getting the Kodak DCS 14/c as a second body for landscape and studio work as it is full framed and has a higher level of detail than your average 1.6 crop d/slr. I dont care what ppl have to say about the negitive things such as slow shutter speed rates and noisy images above ISO 400... The camera was not designed for sports photography anyway and I would just use my 20D for low light shooting if I needed higher ISO's.... I still rekon that its one of the all time bargin cameras currently on the market....Full framed sensor at a reasonable price where you dont have to morgage your life away to own! Hopefully canon and nikon takes some notice and drops there prices (expecally canons 1Ds prices)
RobC wrote:
So the 18 mp chip that they have developed for the Pentax 645 digital is an example of them abandoning high end sensor development. You better start reading a few more digital photography pages.
agreed and you can add the creo purchase too....they wouldn't have bought leaf if they were exiting the pro digital imaging market....the bottom line is don't write kodak off too quickly!
