This topic is in the 2010 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2010Kodak SLR Image Thread
p.2 #1Kodak SLR Image Thread
And how much resolution is possible with good lens?
100% crop:
http://www.imaginenature.com/18mm_center.jpg
100% crop:
http://www.imaginenature.com/18mm_center.jpg
Apr 19, 2010 at 12:14 AM
p.2 #2Kodak SLR Image Thread
Paul, your pictures give me a much higher hope for the SLR/c.....
Apr 19, 2010 at 05:31 AM
p.2 #3Kodak SLR Image Thread
Wonderful shots, guys.
Favourite shots so far are the canoes and the rushing winter stream. Keep 'em coming!
Paul (pdm), for the Tamron adaptall 24/2.8 shot, you set those leaves up like that, right?
Favourite shots so far are the canoes and the rushing winter stream. Keep 'em coming!
Paul (pdm), for the Tamron adaptall 24/2.8 shot, you set those leaves up like that, right?
Apr 19, 2010 at 08:43 AM
p.2 #4Kodak SLR Image Thread
pdm ... you referenced a CCD sensor.
Is the Kodak actually a CCD sensor ... I could never find anything to confirm what sensor it was, only that it was made by a third party. I've suspected that it was ... but could not verify.
Is the Kodak actually a CCD sensor ... I could never find anything to confirm what sensor it was, only that it was made by a third party. I've suspected that it was ... but could not verify.
Apr 19, 2010 at 10:30 AM
p.2 #6Kodak SLR Image Thread
No....it's CMOS, manufactured by FillFactory.
-Tim
Apr 19, 2010 at 10:38 AM
p.2 #7Kodak SLR Image Thread
Can you guys post exif data with your shots, especially iso used.
Also was wondering if this camera has no AA filter what is protecting the sensor? Also if no AA filter is it possible to clean the sensor yourself?
-Jim
Also was wondering if this camera has no AA filter what is protecting the sensor? Also if no AA filter is it possible to clean the sensor yourself?
-Jim
Apr 19, 2010 at 11:38 AM
p.2 #8Kodak SLR Image Thread
I have been shooting w/ the SLRn for about a year and what I enjoy is how wonderful the output is + it forces me to think before shooting.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3616/3457938687_65560dfc5b.jpg
F/4 @ 1/60th
ISO 160
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4009/4480947744_6a9b40aaaa.jpg
F/16 @ 1/125th
ISO 160
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3315/3482800528_dc9174a9f8.jpg
F/22 @ 1/60th
ISO 160
Edited on Apr 19, 2010 at 02:12 PM · View previous versions
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3616/3457938687_65560dfc5b.jpg
F/4 @ 1/60th
ISO 160
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4009/4480947744_6a9b40aaaa.jpg
F/16 @ 1/125th
ISO 160
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3315/3482800528_dc9174a9f8.jpg
F/22 @ 1/60th
ISO 160
Edited on Apr 19, 2010 at 02:12 PM · View previous versions
Apr 19, 2010 at 11:57 AM
p.2 #10Kodak SLR Image Thread
Thanks. Took it last year off of Pacific Coast Hwy (PCH) in Sonoma County. Scary thing was that I was on my belly while cars/ trucks whizzed by.
Apr 19, 2010 at 01:13 PM
p.2 #11Kodak SLR Image Thread
jarenas,
care to share what ISO you were shooting at?
-Jim
care to share what ISO you were shooting at?
-Jim
Apr 19, 2010 at 01:19 PM
p.2 #12Kodak SLR Image Thread
Jim Schemel wrote:
jarenas,
care to share what ISO you were shooting at?
-Jim
I have updated the images and posted the ISO under each image. Thanks for the inquiry
jarenas,
care to share what ISO you were shooting at?
-Jim
I have updated the images and posted the ISO under each image. Thanks for the inquiry
Apr 19, 2010 at 02:14 PM
p.2 #13Kodak SLR Image Thread
Paul,
What are your observations so far in comparison to your 5DII? Are you able to do any comparison shots for us? Also have you taken any shots with ISO lower than 50? It would be interesting to see what your colors would look like at the lower ISOs
-Jim
What are your observations so far in comparison to your 5DII? Are you able to do any comparison shots for us? Also have you taken any shots with ISO lower than 50? It would be interesting to see what your colors would look like at the lower ISOs
-Jim
Apr 19, 2010 at 02:56 PM
p.2 #14Kodak SLR Image Thread
Paul,
scratch the low ISO question.I just read the specs and 160 is as low as it goes.I thought i read somewhere, that one of these Kodak's goes down to like 6 iso
-Jim
scratch the low ISO question.I just read the specs and 160 is as low as it goes.I thought i read somewhere, that one of these Kodak's goes down to like 6 iso
-Jim
Apr 19, 2010 at 02:59 PM
p.2 #15Kodak SLR Image Thread
I will try to take a same picture with two cameras over the weekend.
My initial impression is that the Kodak somehow brings out more details...I maybe wrong here, but it may have to do with better metering and DR.
Some might say it's due to no AA filter....
My major reason for buying this camera, however, is a much better color rendering, such better skin tone.
I'm still learning this camera.... But it's very promising.
My initial impression is that the Kodak somehow brings out more details...I maybe wrong here, but it may have to do with better metering and DR.
Some might say it's due to no AA filter....
My major reason for buying this camera, however, is a much better color rendering, such better skin tone.
I'm still learning this camera.... But it's very promising.
Apr 19, 2010 at 03:14 PM
p.2 #16Kodak SLR Image Thread
Very nice! Looks very much like what I get out of the Leica M8, which also has an "inferior" old CCD sensor.
Apr 19, 2010 at 03:44 PM
p.2 #17Kodak SLR Image Thread
Jim ... (iirc) I think the BASE ISO for the Kodak is 160 ... and does go down to ISO 6.
... it uses some form of interpolation of multiple exposures (pre-HDR) in camera to achieve the 'super-low' ISO's (somebody please correct me on this).
The only literature I've seen on it makes reference to CMOS, but is worded in such a way that I'm still wondering if they are talking about some form of architecture, rather than the sensor itself ... hence, still wondering if it is actually a CCD sensor. CCD's are SLOW ... and the Kodak is definitely SLOW by comparison to CMOS sensor based bodies.
... it uses some form of interpolation of multiple exposures (pre-HDR) in camera to achieve the 'super-low' ISO's (somebody please correct me on this).
The only literature I've seen on it makes reference to CMOS, but is worded in such a way that I'm still wondering if they are talking about some form of architecture, rather than the sensor itself ... hence, still wondering if it is actually a CCD sensor. CCD's are SLOW ... and the Kodak is definitely SLOW by comparison to CMOS sensor based bodies.
Apr 19, 2010 at 04:08 PM
p.2 #18Kodak SLR Image Thread
CCD's are slow in what way? Many of the APS-C cameras from a couple of years ago, like the D80, used CCD.
Apr 19, 2010 at 04:28 PM
p.2 #19Kodak SLR Image Thread
Lets not forget the Original Canon 1D was CCD and the detail and color it put out was amazing.Only reason i got rid of it was poor high iso/and small file size
-Jim
-Jim
Apr 19, 2010 at 05:19 PM
p.2 #20Kodak SLR Image Thread
I've got a D70s ... I LIKE CCD's ... just wishing for the Kodak (or other FF) to be a CCD.
SLOW ... meaning they are much better suited to shooting at low ISO's and have a preference toward longer exposures compared to the capabilities of CMOS sensors, and it has SLOW file writing by today's standards.
I think there's a reason why MF's use CCD ... just wishing for one to go with my alt glass.
SLOW ... meaning they are much better suited to shooting at low ISO's and have a preference toward longer exposures compared to the capabilities of CMOS sensors, and it has SLOW file writing by today's standards.
I think there's a reason why MF's use CCD ... just wishing for one to go with my alt glass.
Apr 19, 2010 at 05:24 PM