Kodak DCS vs D@X

[robbie_caswell]

Can anyone compare the two? If I go digital I want full frame would

be desirable. Kodak has the full frame sensor vs. the D2X and it's

1.5 focal length. This would not be sports related, just event,

portraits shooting.

[vivek iyer]

I thought Kodak put an end to its DSLRs. Get a 1DsMkII if you want a full frame DSLR.

[jheimsch]

Robbie,

 

Read this review:

 

http://www.naturfotograf.com/D2X_rev00.html

 

After reading that think hard to why exactly you want full frame. At this point full frame is nothing more than marketing hype, in my humble opinion. The tools currently exist so you can do anything you need to with a sub-full frame sensor camera. As you are mostly intested in moderately wide to telephoto situations, as I read your statement regarding events and portraits, you don't seem to fall into the "I really, really need a full frame sensor" crowd. This crowd is populated mainly by two groups: landscape photographers and nerdy gear fondlers. So if you don't need an 10-20 mm equivalent you will get yourself a far better camera at a far more reasonable price than the most realistic next alternative ($7,000+ Canon DSLR). If you are thinking of getting into the landscape photographer group there are a variety of specialty lenses that will give you the equivalent of super wides on 35mm. If you are not looking to make super large prints, you wouldn't even require a D2X to do a excellent job of the event and portrait shooting. My D70 does very well for a fraction the price of a D2X. That being said, I fall into the catagory of Nikon enthusist that currently don't own a D2X that would really like one.

 

Have a great weekend,

 

Justin

[RaymondC]

Issue is of course for some pple they need fast lenses. Sure there are the DX lenses the 12-24 and 17-55 but it means you need an extra 2 expensive lenses as well as your expensive full frmae lenses if you shoot film as well.

 

On travel for me, its hard to get fast wide lenses without getting lens shade issue with the intenal flash and for my style of travelling the speedlight is out of the question. For this I have sorta runned it down to using a 24 and 50 prime and accepted that wides are out of the question. 20mm does not provide much, 18mm or wider gets too big for the internal flash.

[bwcombs]

I think Robbie should be able to buy any camera desired.

 

I just want to be the commission salesman working the counter

when he does it.

[scotth]

Has anyone actually used the DCS? I haven't so I won't comment on it vs. the D2X (which I haven't used either). But, according to <a href="http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/cameras/proSLRc/proSLRcIndex.jhtml">Kodak</a> the DCS pro/n is "Now shipping!". It's available new at B&H for $3,500. Used DCS PRO 14N is offerd at KEH for $2,200.<p>

 

<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/kodakslrc/">dpreview.com</a> did an in-depth review of the closely related Canon version of the DCS. I wouldn't call it a rave, but it wasn't too bad.

[watermelon]

Saw an artical in Practical Photography a while ago comparing the Kodak to the MF gear it trys to replace. Was written by David Norton I think (top landscape photographer) who was gutted by the level of noise in the sky (clearly shown - he had a point) and moire on a fence in the scene.

 

D2x sounds superior in every way.

[hash]

Maybe this is slightly off topic, but... here is why we need full frame: If my D70 was full frame, I would buy a used Sigma 28-300 for 100$ and live happily ever after. With the crop factor I have to buy the 18-200, and it's not available used, and will cost me 250$!

 

More seriously tho, till affordable lenses in the equivalent zoom ranges become widespread I will continue to wish for full frame. For instance the 24-120 VR is perfect for full frame. What do we have for the DSLR that's similar? So instead of having to build all wide and standard the lenses all over again it might be easier / desirable to keep the full frame as standard.

[fourfa]

*boggle*

 

so you want to spend several thousand extra dollars on sensor area so you can save a few hundred bucks, maybe only one hundred bucks, on a low end consumer 7X zoom lens?

 

swoon

[jakob_norstedt_moberg]

I have a DCS PRO SLR/n since 6 weeks ago. I have not used a D2X, so I can not compare but I can say a few things about the Kodak.

<p>

First, Kodak has just declared they have discontinued the production of it. They will provide service for another three years.

<p>

Second, when it comes to price you can not compare the two cameras. The Kodak can be a bargain, it was for me. I bought an almost new, with a total of 1300 exposures, for one third of the price I would have to pay for a new D2X.

<p>

The noice is a problem with the Kodak if you use anything higher than the lowest "normal" ISO 160. But if you stay there, it will not cause any trouble. And if you want an image which is really free from noice you can use the so called "longer" mode, with very long exposure times (15 seconds and so) and ISO down to ISO 6. Since you can not use short exposurestimes in this mode, you need neutral density filters if photographing in daylight. But indoors on a tripod, it works.

<p>

The Kodak does not have an Anti Aliasing filter in front of the sensor. You get the maxium sharpness out of your lenses, but may get some moire which you need to handle in Photoshop.

<p>

The sensor have some problems. I was photographing snow last weekend and got purple edges in high contrast areas.

<p>

I really like to be able to use my lenses as they are intended, without any crop factor. And I really like the feeling of crispy 13.5 Megapixel images. If you do landscape or indoor photography on a tripod, the Kodak can be a fantastic bargain right now.

<p>

Two sample panoramas, stiched from about seven Kodak images each (the first is 25000x3000 pxiels -the camera in landscape mode, the second is 18250x4300 pixels - the camera in portrait mode) can be found at <a href="http://www.fotoverkstan.se/zoom.htm">http://www.fotoverkstan.se/zoom.htm</a>. I used Nikkor 85mm / 1.8 for both.

<p>

Jakob

[hash]

No I am not going to buy a full frame. Just saying why it would be desirable, especially if the difference in cost was more poportionate.

[eric merrill]

Justin:

 

>> The tools currently exist so you can do anything you need to with a

sub-full frame sensor camera. <<

 

Depends. If I want razor-thin DOF, I need to buy a lot more expensive

glass if I'm using a smaller format. If using a 1.5x crop factor, I'd

need a 35/1 lens to get close to the effect I can get with a 50/1.4 on

film. In a Nikon mount, looks like I'd need to settle for the 28/1.4,

and still has more DOF. Meanwhile, I'm spending an extra $1400 on the

lens that isn't exactly what I want. Hmm...if I factor in that extra

$1400, all of a sudden, the full frame bodies aren't that much more

expensive.

 

 

Eric

[jheimsch]

Subject: Response to Kodak DCS vs D@X

 

Eric,

The original post I typed out and then erased mentioned all the reasons why I wouldn't even consider the Kodak a viable option. Since I erased it, my second post may not be as clear.

 

The reason that no one with the cash to debate these cameras would get the Kodak are:

 

-1.7 frames/second max

-extreme iso noise

-ergo is crap

-built into an N80 body

-worse flash capabilities as compared to D2X (synch speed and control)

-moire issues. etc..etc.

 

When this camera first came out it had its place and people purchased it to use as a tool knowing the limitations. Today this camera can't compete. As for the depth of field comments, yes there is some truth to that. I purchased a 50mm f1.2 for just that reason...but after comparing that to the 50mm f1.8 I already had I don't think I would do it again if I had the chance. Another factor is the use of post processing software...PS can do the same thing as your $1400 lens without too much trouble. Again, annoying that it doesn't come out of the camera that way, but there are cheaper ways around that issue. My comments were mostly targeted at the people who cry about wide angle support, because from the stuff I have read those are the people that complain about lack of full frame sensors. I rarely hear people complain of the depth of field issue on the high end cameras.

 

As an aside, I think digital camera are slightly different from their film fathers and mothers in that they are not merely light tight boxes. The technology within them actually makes the picture, unlike film based cameras. Even if I can guess the exposure perfectly an inferior digital sensor/algorithm will always take an inferior picture all other things being equal. This changes the old debate somewhat.

 

Oh well, best of luck to Robbie finding a camera that fits his needs well. Justin

[ShunCheung]

The original Kodak DCS 14n was announced around the same time as Canon's 1Ds, in the fall of 2002. The Kodak was 14MP at $5000 while the Canon was 11MP at $8000. On paper, the Canon looked poor.

 

But as people say, the devil is in the details. Kodak simply had problems after problems getting the 14n to the market. After a multi-month delay, the 14n continued to have a lot of problems and eventually Kodak replaced it with the SLRn within a year and added the Canon version. Now a year and half later, everything is discontinued with no more replacement.

 

I'd say think carefully before jumping into a product line with so many problems, even though the price seems low. Recently, my local store had the Canon mount version at a fire sale price of $2500 or so, new.

[jakob_norstedt_moberg]

>>The reason that no one with the cash to debate these cameras would get the Kodak are:<<

 

I have selected the DCS because it suits me better than the D2X. Not everybody need high speed and high ISO, but some need highest possible resolution (with Nikon lenses) and the possibility to use fullframe lenses for what they are ment. If D2X had suited me better I would have bought it, but for me, the Kodak is currently the right camera. The price was not the main factor for the decision but it helped, of course.

 

Jakob

[fourfa]

<i>If I want razor-thin DOF, I need to buy a lot more expensive glass if I'm using a smaller format. If using a 1.5x crop factor, I'd need a 35/1 lens to get close to the effect I can get with a 50/1.4 on film. In a Nikon mount, looks like I'd need to settle for the 28/1.4, and still has more DOF. Meanwhile, I'm spending an extra $1400 on the lens that isn't exactly what I want. Hmm...if I factor in that extra $1400, all of a sudden, the full frame bodies aren't that much more expensive.</i>

<p>

can you give an example of where you'd want that kind of razor thin DOF? I'm having a hard time picturing a situation where you'd want that DOF that narrow, much less pay thousands of extra dollars for it. Buying fast lenses in order to move the sharpness sweet spot into larger apertures I understand, and for shooting faster but having to make do with micro-DOF. But wanting micro-DOF on purpose?

[mawz]

Andy: Portraiture and Macro Work.

 

Jakob: The D2x will easily outresolve the DCS/n, especially at higher ISO's given the newer

and better CMOS sensor (The DCS/n has essentially the same sensor as the DCS 14n.

which was decent for 2002, but is simply not up to the modern CMOS sesnors in the D2x

or 1Ds mkII) Not to mention it's simply superior in every which way except price (Better

build, AF, Flash, metering, faster activation, lower shutter lag, faster write speeds). Full-

Frame is marketing hype, pure and simple (Even the 1Ds mkII is good because of it's

processing and resolution, not because it's 'full-frame')

 

In fact, for Image Quality, the Fuji S3 will match the DCS/n for half the price, handles

almost identically (Both are essentially F80's), and provides better dynamic range.

[hash]

About DOF with crop factor:

 

Actually the same lenses have the same DOF regardless of crop. The DOF is affected only if you use a wider lens to maintain the angle of coverage.

 

So a 50/1.8 will have the same DOF on full frame as well as on a camera with 1.5 crop - you don't have to go for a 50/1.2. If you want to get the same effect as a 50/1.8 full frame, on a cropped camera you would need something like a 33mm lens with the same iris diameter - which I guess would be f/1.4 or so.

[jheimsch]

Hashim,

 

You are correct. Here is a little excerpt from one of Bob Atkins tutorials here.

 

"For an equivalent field of view, the EOS 10D has at least 1.6x MORE depth of field that a 35mm film camera would have - when the focus distance is significantly less then the hyperfocal distance (but the 35mm format need a lens with 1.6x the focal length to give the same view)."

 

 

I think this was my issue. My photography started out with mostly manual lenses. The only really fast autofocus lens I have the is always handholdable indoors is a 50mm f1.8. So when comparing photos with very similar composition, the ones taken on my film cameras always appeared to have more limited depth of field...hence the purchase of the 50mm f1.2. When I shot more photos with both the ones I really liked turned out more often than not to be the 50mm f1.8. Could be the fact that I am mostly taking pictures of my 6 month old daughter and she is a wiggling thing, making the 50mm f1.2 much harder to effectively utilize...I am not sure. But with particular regard to depth of field I kept seeing pictures saying "that one has really nice out of focus backgrounds with shallow depth of field, I must have taken that with the 50mm f1.2 and when I would look at the meta data it would almost always be the 50mm f1.8

 

Sorry everyone. I was thinking of changing my name to Frank,

 

Justin

[e_m3]

Robbie,

 

Go for the D2x. I have the Kodak 14NX (that's the 14N upgraded with the new chip.) It's a great camera. Most negative comments here are from people who have never used the DCS system and only parrot what they hear; nevertheless, the D2x will serve you better all around. Just don't forget to add in the price of the DX lenses if you need any. That can bring the price up a good deal.