Belittle my fruit will you...Doug, as hard as it might be to imagine a lot of photographers get paid for shooting fruit, but that wasn't the point of this exercise. Although I am certain many individuals told Dali, Picasso, Cezanne and Matisse that painting fruit was a waste of good canvas, you would yearn for one of their fruit creations. At some point in the future this masterpiece could be worth millions, however, a week ago it was worth $5.42 and later became breakfast. Nonetheless, have you ever considered arranging to shoot some of your landscapes on the 14n so we can see how it does outside the studio?
mkonik wrote:
Belittle my fruit will you...Doug, as hard as it might be to imagine a lot of photographers get paid for shooting fruit, but that wasn't the point of this exercise. Although I am certain many individuals told Dali, Picasso, Cezanne and Matisse that painting fruit was a waste of good canvas, you would yearn for one of their fruit creations. At some point in the future this masterpiece could be worth millions, however, a week ago it was worth $5.42 and later became breakfast. Nonetheless, have you ever considered arranging to shoot some of your landscapes on the 14n so we can see how it does outside the studio?
I have started testing the Pro 14n. Of course, the weather turned terrible and I do not have a studio. (Dark skies and thundershowers - typical early spring.)
Did manage to do some quick shooting in the city for an hour in RAW 13.5MP capture mode until the battery died. (Camera kits do not come with a fully charged battery.) And some testing of JPEG capture indoors while we still had some sun a few days ago.
As expected, image quality is superb in RAW and surprisingly high in JPEG modes. Artifacts are extremely well controlled, even in the highest compression JPEG's, at ISO 80. Sharpness is high too. (I left Noise Reduction at "Normal" and Sharpness at "Low" because I prefer to fine-tune sharpness in Photoshop USM.)
The Photo Desk software does not offer controls for adjusting *numerous* image parameters as some other RAW software does. But it allows for adjusting all essential parameters. Others can be adjusted after conversion to TIFF, in Photoshop.
The Adobe RAW software is NOT fully compatible with Pro 14n RAW images. (Nor does Adobe claim that it is.) I would NOT recommend using the Adobe RAW plug-in because colors are way off and image quality is poor.
Battery life is a bit short, and I would certainly want a couple of extra batteries for long days in the field. And a cigarette lighter adapter for the charger, if that were available. (The Canon EOS 1Ds battery is much larger and lasts much longer. I guess one could buy an aftermarket adapter accessory.) In a studio, you can use the AC/DC adapter so battery life is not relevant there.
The owners' manual is large and well written. Camera is easy to use - N80 style controls and logical menus. I wish the lettering in the small LCD monitor on the back were larger and more bold, so I could more easily see Remaining Frames and Camera Writing to Card info.
I also wish the camera had a VIEW button for one touch switching to image viewing mode. This is the first camera that I have tested without such a button. You must use other buttons to get to image viewing and the process is not as quick or simple.
Otherwise, the Pro 14n is easy and convenient to operate.
When we get some sun, I'll shoot the same scene with the Pro 14n and the EOS 1Ds.
ddolde wrote:
Have you guys seen Michael Reichmann's test of 14n vs 1Ds on The Luminous Landscape?
The Canon makes it look like dog caca by comparison. Don't waste your money on one. Bye Bye Kodak.
This guy had a bad camera or had stuff set wrong, all other preliminary testers have not had these poor results, I will pass judgement with the camera in my hand hopefully the demo model will arrive this week
I just saw the review from the Luminous Landscape site. The firmware was 4.0.2 (with that version the one I shot with had an obvious warning about being preproduction), I believe it is now or will be above version 4.1 so several revs will have occured within a very short period of time. Since the ISO was around 400 which does produce a lot of noise IMO on the 14n, I would have tried to shoot them at ISO 80, but I understand what was being conveyed. The highest ISO I was happy with was 200 with the 4.0.2 firmware. Make no mistake, there is work to be done but don't think for a minute that Canon did not encounter these very same issues when they decided on a CMOS sensor a few years ago. Fortunately for their PR they had not announced a camera as early as Kodak did in the production life cycle. There will be numerous reviews appearing on the 14n very soon but after working with digital studio cameras since the early 90s I have learned to wait until the manufacturer releases what they think is the final version, it can be a very different animal at that point.
Deny the obvious what? I NEVER allow one persons opinion sway my judgement. EVER. I have seen too many excellent images (some that I have shot) to be moved by this one OPINION from some guy in Canada.
The Reichmann review -- and comparisons with the 1Ds -- are flawed.
I have a sample of the Pro 14n too, including newer Firmware, and have made some images of absolutely stunning quality. Completely free of artifacts or noise, and as sharp as I want: sharpness is easily adjusted in the RAW image converter software.
The weather has been terrible -- I am also in Toronto, Canada -- so I still need to do a lot more shooting, but so far, I'm impressed with the image quality potential of the Pro 14n. Like any camera, it has pros and cons, but I'm not ready yet to publish conclusions.
I stongly disagree with some of the approaches that M. Reichmann has taken in his "Comparison" testing, and have exchanged correspondence with him. However, I don't believe it is appropriate for me to outline all of that here.
Suffice to say, he will do more shooting with a Pro 14n. In due course, he should have some newer Firmware. Also, Firmware upgrades are still continuing. *** That's one reason why the usual Digital magazines on the Web have not posted test reports. ***
Arrow is right. Do not make decisions on this camera's pros and cons until someone has fully tested it, using more advanced firmware, in more types of shooting situations -- and employing methods that produce truly valid results and a fair comparison.
ddolde wrote:
To me this is nothing more than denying the facts to make your dream come true. Good luck if you are dumb enough to buy one.
Obviously , you understand little about the tech it takes to make a camera work, alot of that is the "soft" parts of the equation, this is a very big leap in so far as a CMOS sensor is concerned, The same issues were faced by Canon and the same baying at the moon was heard, funny I do not hear it anymore..........
Kodak was at the very forefront of the digital revolution, this is a 5th or 6th generation camera, I hope you are able to eat some crow if necessary
As Peter mentioned, there are flaws with this review. Most reviewers, myself included, will not be posting reviews until next week or the end of the month. As previously posted, there are pictures on my site taken at a variety of ISO settings that counter what this reviewer found. You might also note that he used Phase One ($400) software to process the Canon images, not the Canon software.
To contrast his out-and-about portrait shot, take a look at this one that I shot at the office (total snapshot) at ISO 125, f/3, 1/30th sec. handheld, DCS RAW capture mode. Taken in pretty much the same lighting as this reviewer had (overcast day, area was glassed in). I used the same version of the firmware that the reviewer used for his picture. I can't recall what lens I had on the camera, unfortunately. Note there is no stiple pattern, and the shadows are clean and unblocked.
This image had minimal work in Photo Desk (click-balance), Auto Contrast in PS, and USM applied to Luminance channel at 265%, Radius 0.3, Threshold 1.
Note: for whatever reason, the posted picture is not as warm as the original in Photoshop.
With all due respect....please take your demeaning comments over to DP Preview or one of the other sites where flaming is a way of life...
MANY of us (myself included) use FM as our homepage because our members for the most part do not speak to each other like that....even when we disagree....even when we vehemently disagree with each other.....
It demeans you more than it does the people you are trying to put down-
Steve, if you are objecting to my comments, I may not have picked up on something you read, but my comments are a simple disagreement with some of the other reviewer's findings. Please let me know if I'm missing something here.
Thanks for the info --- It's great that the camera is getting near to being in real photogs hands at last.
One major concern I have is that once you start pushing the ISO up a bit ( I think over 200 ?? but haven't seen the final spec) then whatever you do you won't be able to use the full rez of the camera --so for a lot of low and natural light shooters this then effectively reverts to a 6MP camera making perhaps a look at Canon's 10D worthwhile as you can get 2 1/2 (yes TWO plus some decent glass) of these for about the official price of the 14N although of course the street price will be lower when it starts shipping in quantity.
It seems a shame to hobble the thing at such a low ISO -- the 1DS can do much better here --at a HUGE price however.
but that wasn't the point of this exercise. Although I am certain many individuals told Dali, Picasso, Cezanne and Matisse that painting fruit was a waste of good canvas, you would yearn for one of their fruit creations. At some point in the future this masterpiece could be worth millions, however, a week ago it was worth $5.42 and later became breakfast. Nonetheless, have you ever considered arranging to shoot some of your landscapes on the 14n so we can see how it does outside the studio?
