Interim report on Kodak DCS ProSLR/c

<p>Some of you know that I recently bought a version of the Kodak DCS ProSLR/c. As I get things sorted out, I will be posting a more detailed account and history of the camera. For know, here is some proof that it works, although I haven't got all the 'bugs' worked out.<br>

First the camera.</p><div></div>

<p>The Sigma lens is one of the early EOS system lenses that will no longer work on newer EOS cameras, but works fine with the Kodak.<br /> The Kodak is a modified Sigma SA9 body with a full (!) 24x36mm sensor with 13.89 MP. This is not only full-frame, but high res by later standards. However, the sensor is a Foveon 2652 × 1768 × 3 layers sensor, so there is debate about how pixel counts compare to what have now become the standard forms of sensors.<br /> This produces a 4500x3000 pixel image - here is the first shot with it. The focus points are active on the left of the image, but this just shows an image is being saved on the CF card.</p><div></div>

<p>I am still having some problems with the control settings, but the above is at ISO 100 and at 1/30 sec (another reason for unsharpness).<br>

So I am making progress. In a few weeks, if some additional materials come in and I figure out the control system, I will be back.</p>

<p>Not too shabby for early 2004, but Nikon and Canon were making the moves that would ultimately kill the sales for this camera and its Nikon-mount sister.</p>

<p>Wonderful! A very special camera body with an amazing and unique image quality. I'm looking forward to more reports from you!</p>

<p>I'm just amazed that you can do anything with it. Good luck with your venture.</p>

<p>Are you quite sure it's a Foveon sensor? I have a Sigma DP2 Merrill and I can see the per-pixel sharpness from that; the Kodak DCS Pro SLR/c made good images, but it didn't have the same bite. The quality was broadly comparable to the Canon 1Ds Mark I and II, which have Bayer-matrix sensors. Check the size of the raw images - do they really have three separate colour channels per pixel?</p>

<p>My understanding is that the sensor came from another company called Fill Factory. The irony is that Kodak pioneered CCD sensors, and in the early DCS line, Canikon provided the camera body while Kodak provided the sensor. By the end Kodak were reduced to fitting third party sensors into third party camera bodies.</p>

<p>http://www.nikonweb.com/files/DCS_Story.pdf has some interesting info.</p>

<p>The sensor is not a "Foveon" sensor, Foveon sensors have been used commercially only on Sigma cameras and on a Polaroid Point and Shoot that never got off the ground.</p>

It's not a Foveon. It's apparently the same Kodak sensor used in the Kodak DCS ProSLR/n (itself derived from the Kodak DCS Pro 14n)

in a Sigma designed body.

 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodak_DCS_Pro_SLR/c

 

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2123039594/kodakslrc

 

Very fascinating sensor...full frame, apparently no anti-aliasing filter, etc...

<p>I didn't think it up on my own, but I must have dreamed it.<br /> I thought it did have the Sigma Foveon sensor, but some other sources indicate that it is the same CMOS sensor as the Nikon ( as said, without a bayer filter).<br /> The original Sigma SD-9, however, apparently did have a Foveon sensor (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigma_SD9">link</a>), and since I thought the Kodak is supposed to be based on that, I assumed......</p>

<p>Another good reason for making an interim post, I see. :)<br>

Thanks for the correction. I appreciate it, really.</p>

<p>FWIW, there are some photos from this camera at and https://www.flickr.com/photos/7500206@N08/sets/72157623334602174</p>

<p>They are just holiday snaps but they may give some idea of the sensor quality.</p>

<p>JDM, what format are the images saved in, just JPG, Tiff, Raw, do the photos import well in editing software like LR or PS? </p>

<p>I don't collect cameras, I just don't happen to sell what I have when I get replacements!<br>

The raw files are Kodak DCR files and they are editable in LR and I'm sure PS.<br>

The native ISO on mine was 160, although JDM's photo was 100.</p><div></div>

<p>Adrian K, I think you may be mixing up different Kodak models. There was the DCS 520C, a 2-megapixel, 1.6x crop camera where I believe the base ISO was 160. Its big brother was the DCS 560C, with 6 megapixels and 1.3x crop, but an ISO range of only 80 to 200. These were both made from a Canon EOS 1N body with extra electronics Frankensteined into a bulky vertical grip.</p>

<p>A few years later (and after various Nikon-mount bodies) Kodak launched the DCS Pro SLR/c, which is the subject of this thread. It is a full frame body with roughly 14 megapixels, built by Sigma and similar to their DSLRs of the same period. I think that the base ISO on the SLR/c is 100 though there is an interesting firmware bug where the ISO can be momentarily set below that level before quickly jumping back up again. Possibly this might indicate that an early prototype had a lower ISO setting which was then disabled in firmware, but who knows? (This weirdness is typical of the poor handling of the camera.)<br>

<br />The DCS Pro SLR/c does have a special extra-low-ISO mode for long exposures, allowing as low as ISO 8 or something around that. I don't know how it works.</p>

<p>Ed, according to the user's guide for my DCS Pro SLR/c, the ISO range is 160 to 1600.<br>

I bought that camera in 2005. Maybe earlier/later versions had a different range.</p>

<p>Be careful with that Sigma lens. Earlier AF Sigma lenses lenses did not have override-focus. I once ruined a lens like that which I only used for 1 day. </p>

<p>Adrian K, sorry I misremembered. I think you're right and it is 160 but you can weirdly set it to some lower value like 125 for a fraction of a second. The EXIF data for my photographs doesn't include the ISO setting. Harry J - isn't this true for most older lenses, whether Canon or Sigma or other make? You have to change the switch to MF before moving the focus ring, else you may damage the motor.</p>

<p>Format is DCR and jpg. 4500x3000 pixels.<br /> Usually I prepare these reports in a text editor, check everything out fairly carefully.<br /> But this one I did on the fly, in a sleep-deprived condition. Forgive me.</p>

<p>And thanks to Ed Avis who helped get into this business, although my management of it so far has been a little shaky.</p>