Hey, anyone remember the kodak 14n?

Shun Cheung wrote:

>Jakob, if you have not heard of their reliability issues, apparently you missed Garry Edwards' post earlier in this

thread.

<p>

Now and then even a Nikon camera has a problem. I read about tens of them each day here at photo.net.

<p>

I don't care if the Kodak was intended only for studio work or not. I have used mine for allround photography, and

especially for creating spherical VR panoramas (with a shaved Nikkor 10.5mm fisheye) out in national parks with

pleasure and great

success.

<p>

I am brought up with manual traditional photography since I was eight in the sixties, when I got a Voigtlander and a

handheld exposure meter. I have had a Leica M3 and a Hasselblad. Neither have the speed of modern cameras but

when I had them I felt I created great images. I had the same feeling with the Kodak.

<p>

I had a D70 before the Kodak, but I never got used to the tiny DX sensor. It simply wasn't made for me.

 

<p>

Jakob

Also consider the 14Nx which is a 14N with upgraded sensor and buffer. There seems to be lots of cheap batteries on eBay for these cameras. It has been my experience in the past with Canon batteries that cheap third party batteries are actually better than the originals.

The crispness of the images from the 14n was remarkable, provided that one had good light. Here is one made just after midday using a cheap Nikon walk-around lens:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/5227322&size=lg

 

Sometimes, however, a bush or a cedar tree would have texture that the noise reduction would simply smooth out until it looked like something from a watercolor--and one could not cut off the noise reduction, although a firmware upgrade made it possible to weaken it somewhat. That kind of thing, combined with extraordinarily high noise at low light and long exposures, finally made me give it up.

 

Since the sensor gave such sharp images, however, I sometimes wonder why Kodak did not pursue further development. Instead, they bailed out of the full-frame market completely.

 

--Lannie

<p>First, compliments to John for the photos. I think Kodak 14nx is a very very good camera. It work on a poor N80 body, like my fantastic S3 (fuji), but it is capable to make, for me, better image than all actual nikon and canon bodies. I completely agree with Landrum, "I sometimes wonder why Kodak did not pursue further development", I have made some comparative tests, and this "dinosaur rex" of paleolithic era is better, for resolution and color shades, to 5D Mk2 "22 MP" of 2009 !!</p>

<p>I recently found one of these (Kodak 14N) for 400e (about$500US) used in Lisboa. I comes with 2 batteries & charger and a few other accessories. I will probably buy this camera since I want a full frame DSLR and don't want to spend a lot of money on the body so I can put most of the money I have into glass.<br>

What generations of Nikon lenses should I look for so that all the functions work correctly?</p>

<p>The two Kodak 14MP DSLRs with Nikon mount were modified from the F80/N80 film bodies. Therefore, they cannot meter with no-CPU AI/AI-S lenses. If you don't mind no metering and no AF, you can still use AI/AI-S lenses on them. Otherwise, the Kodak DSLRs are compatible with all Nikon AF lenses (including AF-D and AF-S) that are not DX.</p>

<p>If you have to buy one of those cameras, I would go for the later SLRn instead of the original 14n for reasons that have already been given above.</p>

<p>I just got the SLR/n recently. I accidentally set ISO to 1600 and shoot some flowers in the backyard. I thought its a good test. This is done on the 200mm Nikon lens f/4. I am no expert, just want to contribute.<img src="https://picasaweb.google.com/108878155849986068454/KodakSLRN?authkey=Gv1sRgCO-AtdyJ8Nn9MQ#5629027232729773890" alt="" /><br>

If you cant see from here, this is the link<br>

https://picasaweb.google.com/108878155849986068454/KodakSLRN?authkey=Gv1sRgCO-AtdyJ8Nn9MQ#5629027232729773890</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>