Impressions of Kodak Pro DCS SLR/c vs. Canon EOS 1Ds

[beepy]

I decided to pick up a back-up body to my EOS 1Ds after the 1Ds flash started misfiring

and I had to send it in for service (a spring in the hot shoe mount popped out? found the

spring the other day in my camera bag - odd...)

<p>

Anyway, I grabbed a new DCS SLR/c from B&H Photo. Why? Well, I've gotten very used to

the luscious detail the 1Ds gives me at 11 megapixel (I routinely print out 13 x 19" Super B

or larger prints on Epson 2200 or 7600) - I just didn't think I would be happy at this point

with 6 or 8 megapixel. The other thing I was missing in my life is deep burst depth. I

think the EOS 1Ds is rated at 8 frames in RAW mode (10 in JPEG) - but can't find reference

right now. I missed the 20 or so frames of the Nikon D1x I used to use. Plus, in end, I

really don't like focal length multipliers in SLR - want a 28mm to be a 28mm.

<p>

I plunged and bought the DCS Pro SLR/c. Canon lens mount compatible. First impression

was *much* lighter than the 1Ds. I see body only weights for 1Ds at 1265g, while SLR/c is

listed at 895g - without battery? The 1Ds battery is much heavier than the SLR/c battery.

So far, it's been a pleasure to my neck to have lighter camera.

<p>

Second impression - the huge shelf project from lower rear of camera. Sheesh - what was

going through the designers head with that one. The project makes it clumsy to shoot

landscape mode - encourages you to shoot portrait style with your right eye:-)

<p>

Start up speed - slow. Kodak has improved the speed over the original 14n Nikon-

compatible SLR, but still about 5 seconds worst case for Kodak on power up from OFF

position? I am leaving the camera on att his point. 1Ds is just fast and responsive.

<p>

Call me unimaginative, but I shoot my cameras at lowest normal ISO usually to reduce

noise. The Kodak ISO of 160 vs. the 1Ds of 100 gives the Kodak a slight edge on shutter

speed in the same light conditions. (Supposedly noise increases more rapidly with

increasing ISO in the Kodak - did not explore).

<p>

The buttons and more so the menus and how to interact with camera to change settings is

vastly different between the Canon and Kodak. I was missing the Canon menus which

seemed simpler, but you know, I'm getting used to the Kodak style after a couple days.

The CANCEL button is a thing that I'm growing to like.

<p>

Autofocus for Kodak is less capable than 1Ds. When I went to 1Ds from Nikon D1x I was

very happy with the vast improvement in autofocus performance - the Canon EOS 1Ds

rules. Fast, accurate, little hunting. Kodak is passable - similar or perhaps a tad worse

than Nikon D1x. Shooting the San Francisco Carnaval Parade Sunday I was missing more

shots with the Kodak (with Canon 28 - 135mm lens) vs. the Canon 1Ds (with 70 - 200mm

f2.8L lens). I believe it was the camera autofocus that was defeating me.

<p>

Oddly, because of some weddings this past week or so I have been doing some flash

photography in limos during the daytime - strongly backlit subjects. Used a Canon 550EX

flash. What I noticed yesterday was the Kodak seemed to produce a much more pleasing,

balance and natural fill compared to the 1Ds. I certainly want to figure that out more - but

I like the effect.

<p>

I shot both cameras in the studio last week. The (sized down) results are in:

<blockquote>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=400825">The New Palo Alto

folder</a>

</blockquote>

Several of the shots (ff6g prefix) are from the Kodak SLR/c. The Kodak produced images

similarly stunning (to me) as the 1Ds. The prints were rich and detailed.

<p>

So far, my experience has been mostly positive. It seems the Kodak will be my lighter

more casual camera. And a back-up camera for situations where I would be flipping

lenses (like the Carnaval parade) and general backup. Also, nice burst depth will be cool

for things like photographing surfers.

[coconutdaydream]

"The other thing I was missing in my life is deep burst depth. I think the EOS 1Ds is rated at 8 frames in RAW mode (10 in JPEG) - but can't find reference right now. I missed the 20 or so frames of the Nikon D1x I used to use"

 

what the hell are you talking about? The 1Ds gets 3 frames per second and the D1x gets maybe 5? Maybe you're confusing the 1Ds for the 1D and the D1x for the D1h, who knows?

[peter_phan]

<i>what the hell are you talking about? The 1Ds gets 3 frames per second and the D1x gets maybe 5? Maybe you're confusing the 1Ds for the 1D and the D1x for the D1h, who knows?</i>

<p>

I believe he was refering to the 1Ds's buffering capacity. Yes, the 1Ds shoots at 3 frames per second, but into a 10 frame buffer (in RAW or JPEG). That's what he means by "burst depth." You can do a 10 frame burst at 3 frames per second on the 1Ds.

[beepy]

Yes, that was what the hell I was talking about.

<p>

Re-read the section in my manual, and the "maximum number of continuous shots in a

single burst" (which I shortened to "burst depth") is "approximately" 10 regardless of mode

(JPEG level, RAW) - but right above this table on page 99 the manual says the maximum

number is dependent on image recording quality. My experience is this number seems

less than 10 (as I said, I only shoot RAW).

[beepy]

Argh - I see I missed saying: The 1Ds has 3 fps continuous shooting rate (until buffer full)

while the SLR/c has 1.7 fps continuous. For the type of things I've photographed in the

past I was so much needing high fps (like the 1D Mark II 8 fps?) but more like ability to

take 20 pics in a single burst at a reasonable fps.

<p>

We'll see if I'm right (or, I'll see if I'm right - you know what I mean...).

<p>

The start-up time of the Kodak SLR/c was making me bonkers today in San Francisco. I

am so used to turning on and off the 1Ds. Turn off the Kodak and pain ensues if you want

it on fast. Given history of the Kodak SLR using batteries up fast I've been tending to turn

it off when not in use (while driving etc.) Need to get in habit of turning it on 5 - 10

seconds before I say "Cheese!"

[beepy]

Measure twice, cut once. Sheesh.

<p>

"in the past I was so much needing high fps" -> "in the past I was NOT so much needing

high fps".

[rainer_viertlb_ck]

i bought a kodak SLR/n for me. mostly i shoot architecture and now i start to mix shots from the SLR and 4x5" shots for some shots, wher i have the need for higher resolution. sincs i found a very good example of the sigma 12-24 lense, the digital system covers in wide angle the same view than my 4x5" with my 35mm rodenstock. ofcourse i have to shift electronically, but till din A3+ the results are stunning,- completely comparable to my 4x5" sheets, even if they are drumscanned.

also there are many situations where i even prefere the digital shots,- especially for the higher dynamic range. i really like this new way to shoot........

[david_lau3]

I have no trust in having Sigma making a camera for Canon lenses, based on Sigma lenses having big compatibility problems with Canon bodies and require re-chipping. This does not happen with Tamron, Tokina etc. Given this poor record, even if the SLR/c is compatible with all existing Canon lenses, I doubt it may not be compatible with new ones in the future.

[beepy]

More experiences...

<p>

Autofocus on the Kodak is driving me nuts. Very poor, frankly. Taking it into manual

focus a lot. In low light it is hopeless.

<p>

Definitely a backup camera.

[beepy]

Another update. Shot a waterpolo match today, bright sun, with Canon 1Ds and Kodak

DCS Pro SLR/c. The autofocus on the Kodak was much much better in bright sun. Though

it lost focus a couple times and had to hunt (which the Canon never did) it was much

better than the low light (flash) shooting I was doing the other day. The Kodak performed

pretty good shooting the match, snatched a few shots.

[rainer_viertlb_ck]

what is nearly allways a need with the slr, is postproduction in photoshop. a.e. in bright sun you will very often have blue fringing at hig contrast edges or in trees. this is completely unacceptable if you are not willed to work with the images later in the computer. i think in this aspects the canon behaves much better and easy.

[gerry_szarek]

If memory serves me right Kodak had bought the "rights" to canon's autofocus / flash scheme so compatability with lenses should not be an issue (Sigma is just building to print). From what I also have read the new Kodak's do not eat battery's like the previous version did. I am actually hoping/praying that everybody bad mouths this camera so I can pick one up really cheap, but that isn't likely to happen.

[beepy]

Battery life is excellent on the Kodak SLR/c.