Nikon d90 vs Kodak DCS SLR/N

<p>I just purchased a Kodak DCS SLR/N which is an older 14Mp camera from Kodak. I like the image quality, but then I started wondering about the image quality of a more modern SLR like the d90 which is pretty close in price and resolution. Does anyone have any experience with the Kodak SLR/N (F mount)? Any information about the image quality will be greatly appreciated.</p>

<p>I liked the camera when I leased it several years ago and wrote a review ....</p>

<p><a href="http://outbackcoyote.com/">http://outbackcoyote.com/</a><br>

you can click on the kodak professional dcs 14 n review.</p>

<p>good luck,</p>

<p>michael.</p>

 

<p>Thanks! I will be reading the review...</p>

<p>The Kodak DCS is clunky, has no sleep mode, takes forever to turn on, is horrible at high ISOs...<br>

If you need to shoot quickly at ANY time, forget it.</p>

<p>I have used this camera extensively in the 14N and Nx versions. The camera is a bit fussy by modern standards but is able to deliver very high quality images with some effort in post processing. Generally it needs to be used at the lowest ISO setting and performs best with Kodak software for conversion from Raw though it works ok with Lightroom. The fact that it doesn't have an AA filter helps the overall resolution but brings some artifacts with certain types of images. High contrast fine lines can cause problems and for that you might want to try the different settings in your conversion software. The noise reduction setting in Kodak software works best at expert level instead of the default. All in all the camera can produce outstanding images in good light with practice and effort in post.<br>

Michael Wood</p>

<p>Thanks Michael. I have noticed that the Kodak software gives nice smotth skintones. Images open up at 300 dpi in KODAK vs 240 in Photoshop. I have not figured out why. I noticed the "purple fringing" on high contrast scenes, especially with fences, branches etc. Is image quality from a d90 going to be better than the older Kodak? I actually like the images from the camera, althought it does feel clunky in terms of ergonomics. I will try lightroom as well to see how that plays out. It also seems to not like certain CF cards.</p>

<p>I also have the D90 and it's a fun camera, hard to compare to the Kodak. The Kodak has a higher pixel count and bigger pixels too so it's less likely to be lens challenged than the D90. D90 is also capable of nice images but perhaps not with the same sharpness of the Kodak in good lighting conditions. D90 is far more versatile with usable ISO up to 800-1600 where as the Kodak is limited to 400 and even that is a stretch. If you want a camera that you can just pick up and go the d90 is better by a mile. The kodak is capable of more detail but is harder to use and much slower overall. <br>

Michael Wood</p>

<p>Thanks. That helps. Image quality ultimately matters for me. I want to have a few good pics versus a million not-so-perfect pics. I have been using mostly manual cameras (mamiya 645, RZ67 etc) so even going to the Kodak feels like it is a lot faster than what I have been using. And this is a lot faster than scanning negs.</p>