Canon vs. Kodak

[edgar_njari]

Lately I have been downloading sample files from some

cameras.

 

Is it just me or are those Canon DSLR cameras best? Compared to Kodak

digital SLR cameras they seem a lot better to me. The Kodak cameras

look more digital and seem to have more artifacts like sharpening

problems, while the Canon images (and Nikon too) look a lot more

smoother, and deeper, more like film.

 

When I look at some of other manufacturers cameras at 100% I feel

Like I am looking at a TV soap opera (the video look), but when I

look at one of those Canon or Nikon files at 100% it feels like film.

 

Are those cameras really different or are they just masters of

propaganda?

[jbq]

Canon cameras (especially the EOS-1 series) seem to achieve a decent balance of image quality, ergonomics and ruggedness.

 

Specifically, Kodak's 14-MP cameras don't have an anti-alias filter, which (with the higher pixel count) allows them to have a higher resolving power. But the cost of that seems to be a higher occurence of digital artifacts (moire), especially with very good lenses that are able to resolve details smaller than the pixels.

 

I'd very much love to have a 1Ds of my own, though I wouldn't be that unhappy if a 1DII fell in my lap.

[edgar_njari]

Yes it must be it. I have experimented a bit with softening.

The image does seem more natural when I soften it, but I can't get

rid of the artefacts. (I was using tiff files downloaded from Kodak site)

[david_lau3]

Besides the quality of the sensor and the image processing capability, the mechanical parts of the camera also make a big different. The Canon body is based on EOS 1V which is a proven pro camera. The Kodak body looks funny and not ergonomic at all with a huge base. It appears to be made by Sigma. Sigma does not have a good reputation in making cameras and is particularly bad in making EOS "compatible" lenses. These lenses in fact are often not compatible - just search Photo.net and you will find hundred of posts on incompatibility of Sigma lenses on Canon bodies.

[J.W. Wall]

Canon has a complete line of products for EOS bodies, such as the Drebel and 10D. If you think you might go on in photography, you may want to choose a body that will have all that additional flexibility, such as a full line of lenses, etc. That basically means, Canon or Nikon.

 

I had a Kodak DC4800 which was nice for its time (2001) but lots of magenta in the pictures. My Canon 10D and S500 produce far better photographs (partly because they're more advanced cameras, of course). YMMV.

[dante_stella]

I always get a kick out of questions like this.</p>

<p>Looking at 100% is pointless because you don't look at 30x40 prints from a

foot away.  When you go to output any of these shots to paper (at any size),

what you see on screen is not a 1:1 correspondence with the output.</p>

<p>You might be surprised to learn that if you actually take the time to shoot

a Kodak 14n or SLR/n or /c, all of them behave much more like film than any

other digital camera.  For example, the Kodak at ISO 160 and its portrait setting

cranks out pictures that look like Portra 160NC.  It's not just the saturation

or the color balance - the Kodak has a dynamic range similar to a film camera. 

You can give a ton of exposure to the shadows without blowing the highlights. 

This is a very welcome relief from the conventional DSLR technique which is to

either (1) let the camera automatically underexpose and throw away what dynamic range

the camera does have or (2) lose a lot of time screwing around

trying to get the histogram to the right without whiting out the highlights.</p>

<p>The Kodak has a very steep learning curve, but it is designed for studio work,

not pointing-and-shooting.

[gary_ferguson1]

"Looking at 100% is pointless because you don't look at 30x40 prints from a foot away."

 

There's an argument that people view prints from a distance roughly equal to the diagonal. And sure enough if you watch people in a gallery they'll often orientate themselves to this datum in order to see the image in totality.

 

However, that's really only half the story. If the subject they're viewing is a crisp, sharp phoptograph then it seems to pull them closer to enjoy the detail. I mainly shoot big, sweeping cityscapes and print them out at 20"x30" or larger. Mounted on a wall viewers at first stand about a yard away, but as soon as they spot a tiny, intriguing detail they'll zoom in to six inches and scrutinise it! Furthermore, the average viewer isn't particularly charitable when it comes to resolution, if the detail doesn't surpass their eyesight, even with their nose pressed to the print, then they're invariably dissatisfied.

 

Consequently I don't fully agree with Dante's statement, IMO unless you can control the viewing distance then only print as big as the shot can take with close range inspection. I find with an 11MP Canon 1Ds I can rarely print bigger than about 13"x20", and for some particularly detail rich subjects I can only go as far as 9"x13.5". Which is why for really big prints I still use a big piece of film!

[mike_daly]

Canon is Pro. Kodak should stick to the Brownie 127! They have fallen behind massivly in the photo market generally. They have been far too complacent - they don't deserve to succeed