Kodak DCS Pro 14nx Digital SLR

[jschultis]

<p>I'm interested in trying full frame, but have enough gear already and don't want to spend the big bucks for D700. Does anyone have experience with the Kodak DCS Pro 14nx Digital SLR for Nikon? Any advice? Happy with the image quality? My primary interest is for landscapes. Thanks for your advice. -Jim</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Qjc7">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Qjc7</a></p>

[dave_reichert1]

<p>Thank you Shun.</p>

<p>Pointing to that thread wil help to keep prices on the SLR/n nice and low. I might be looking for another one soon.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Please don't thank me for something I don't deserve. I doubt that there is anything I can do to further decrease the demand on the Kodak's SLR/n.</p>

[dave_reichert1]

<p>I'm curious Shun; have you ever owned an SLR/n?</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I've used one quite a bit.</p>

<p>It's a horrible experience compared to today's DX cameras even. It's really old technology at this point, too.</p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>I have the DCS Pro 14 NX. I am very happy with it. Yes it is a slow camera to work with but it has very good DR. It has no AA filter so it is very sharp. For landscape work the lack of a AA filter is not usually a problem. It has a built in pocket wizard so it is very handy for studio work.<br />At its base ISO it is as good or better then the 5D or the D700. Anything above base ISO and it is not so great. But the files are usable up to about ISO 400.<br />This shot was done with my Sigma 14 mm f/2.8<br /><a href="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2544/4103903347_18cfaec6bc_o.jpg">http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2544/4103903347_18cfaec6bc_o.jpg</a><br>

This shot was done with the same lens indoors<br /><a href="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2705/4101117339_e4517a0140_o.jpg">http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2705/4101117339_e4517a0140_o.jpg</a><a href="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2705/4101117339_04ff10c6d5.jpg"></a><br />And this shot is what the camera can do in the studio<br /><a href="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4067/4245926187_7ef5a4c51b_o.jpg">http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4067/4245926187_7ef5a4c51b_o.jpg</a><a href="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4067/4245926187_f2da0f07f3.jpg"></a></p>

<p>The NX version is the latest and greatest of them. They fixed a lot of the problems that they had with the early ones. Yes it is still based on a N80 body. It has a Jay Leno chin but if you learn to work with it I believe you will be very happy with the image quality.</p>

[jschultis]

<p>I appreciate the lively debate. Sounds like a good option for me if the price is right. Thanks.</p>

[dave_reichert1]

<p>Yes, it's old technology, but so is film.</p>

<p>If a photographer's primary concern is very high quality image, accurate colors, excellent dynamic range, and full use of all the latest FX Nikon lenses, then the SLR/n (or the 14NX) is one of the best values on the used market today. If he needs high ISO speeds, a large shooting buffer, fast startup times, or a large LCD, then it would be better for him to look elsewhere.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Make sure you can get a decent not-so-old battery for it, too. It's worthless without a battery that will hold a charge, and they haven't made that camera in a number of years.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>The Kodak full frames are extremely capable cameras. You will see my many positive remarks in the linked thread. I was out last week-end with it in -20C weather. No problems, but I had to continually change cold batteries for warm ones as with any DSLR. Last time I checked many new batteries were readily available on eBay. Replacement batteries are often better than the original manufacturers, although I am still using my original four Kodaks. Check out my portfolio for plenty of examples. </p>

<p>It is still a good value compared to the Canon 1Ds, 1DsII, and 5D. I mention these since you can use your Nikon lenses on them with adapters. Stopped down technique, full metering. Funny thing is that with no AA filter the Kodak's 14 MP likely provides superior imaging at ISO 160 to the 12 MP of the D700 and D3. </p>

<p>Brace yourself the slamming is about to elevate! </p>

[hannu]

<p>I used a 14n (not nx) for a while. While they say that the nx is better than n, take good care in evaluating if that camera is what you want, or you'll just be throwing money away. In my experience:</p>

<p>the good:full frame (obviously), excellent image quality *in good light*. I got some very sharp daylight pictures with good colours out of the camera.</p>

<p>the bad: dreadful image quality if you ever have to go beyond ISO 100 and/or longer than 1/2 second exposure. absolutely forget about anything beyond 1 second. the noise is just awful. horrible, horrible viewfinder. the "italian flag" effect (colour shift within the frame) with some lenses.</p>

<p>the ugly: slow. often does some long, mysterious calibrating when starting up. the body ergonomics are bad. the "leno chin" can get in the way -- for instance 28/3.5 cannot be shifted upwards because the chin hits the shift knob. don't be fooled to think it's a proper vertical grip either, it's not. I have large hands and still found it uncomfortable. poor, slow charger (btw original batteries are all dead by now, but there should be still some 3rd party offerings available). unpolished menu interface. </p>

<p>It's a camera for patient people who are willing to accommodate for its quirks (I was not, D700 kicks ass) and check before buying what you think of the long exposures if you're doing any evening/night work. Like I mentioned, they say the nx was an improvement over the n model, which in my opinion just couldn't do anything but studio/daylight outdoors.</p>

 

[John Crowe]

<p><br />That is odd. I have used mine for 1 to 10 second night sky, moonlight, campfire, type shots that printed with excellent results. Bit tricky getting through the menus to select the right ISO settings because if you don't set it right the camera won't even take the photo. Yes it is a quirky camera for the person who has a passion for superior image quality.</p>

<p>I am an IQ nut that is why I used to shoot K25, Ektar 25 and why I still shoot 4x5 Velvia 50. None of my digital cameras ever go beyond their base ISO setting, and the actual base for the Kodak is 160 which gives me a heck of a lot more room than I am used to! Nikon's efforts to win the high ISO stakes has cost them in base ISO performance in all there current cameras except the D3X and perhaps D90.</p>

[mbwood]

<p>I have used the 14N and (Nx) extensively since it was released. IMO many of my best shots were taken with that camera. OK it's got a bit of a learning curve and really only shines at base ISO (160) but it is very capable in it's range. I also used and own(ed) the Nikon D100, D90, D2x, D3 and D3x. I can honestly say that only the D3x clearly has better IQ at base ISO. The Kodak is clunky by comparison to any of those cameras but that's not such a big deal when you see the prints it is capable of making. </p>

[dave_reichert1]

<p>Hannu - "the bad: dreadful image quality if you ever have to go beyond ISO 100 and/or longer than 1/2 second exposure. absolutely forget about anything beyond 1 second. the noise is just awful. horrible, horrible viewfinder. the "italian flag" effect (colour shift within the frame) with some lenses."</p>

<p>This was shot at 15 seconds, ISO 6, with a Kodak SLR/n and a 20-35 2.8 Nikkor at f19. I'm sorry I don't have the focal length - for some reason, the lens failed to communicate it properly to the camera and it reads as 1 mm. There is no trace of noise at all, and I've never experienced the "Italian Flag" effect in any of my images.<br /> http://www.davereichertphoto.com/Current/Water/9335565_8eHvu#624428625_55nzh-A-LB</p>

<p>Virtually all of the color work on my site was shot with this camera, as was all of the recent black and white.</p>

[dave_reichert1]

<p>Michael - Thank you for your comment. <br>

If I could afford a D3x, I think it would be the only reasonable replacement for my SLR/n for the type of work that I do. Hopefully Nikon will see fit to release a D700x in the near future.</p>

[hannu]

<p>John, Dave,</p>

<p>I believe you're talking either of 14nx or 14n which has gone through a sensor upgrade (which AFAIK brings it up to par with nx). The camera I was using was a plain non-upgraded n version which had a base ISO of 80, not 160.</p>

<p>Here's an example of the "italian flag" syndrome: http://hannu.mallat.fi/scratch/italian-flag.jpg<br>

Note the magenta color cast at the top of the picture and green cast at the bottom. The lens used was a MF Nikkor 28/2.8. The effect varies from lens to lens, but in the sample it is quite unacceptable. The photo was imported to PS from Kodak photo desk and resized; no other processing. If anyone wants to see the original DCR file, let me know your address and I will e-mail it (not putting it on a server, too large for my available bandwidth).</p>

<p>I'll see if I still have an example of a noise on a hard disk nearby.</p>

[hannu]

<p>Behind the link is a 100% crop showing noise at ISO 200, the best example I could find (don't have the camera anymore). The picture is not in good focus because the shutter speed I could achieve (1/15) was too slow for a moving escalator, but you can see the noise. The picture was still underexposed, but I'm not good enough with photoshop to brighten it there without making the noise even more prominent. So, it was a useless shot.<br>

http://hannu.mallat.fi/scratch/kodak-noise.jpg</p>

<p>As I said, in good light the camera took wonderful pictures, but the downsides were too much for me. YMMV, and obviously does, based on the satisfied responses in this thread.</p>

[dave_reichert1]

<p>Hannu - "Here's an example of the "italian flag" syndrome..."</p>

<p>My misunderstanding - I thought you were using a 14nx. Yes - the Italian Flag was certainly a well-documented problem with some lenses on the 14n. The original poster was inquiring about the 14nx though. That model used an improved sensor, which was the same as was used in the SLR/n. If I recall correctly, there were also issues with a hot spot in the center of the original 14n sensor, caused by reflections bouncing between the sensor and the rear element of certain lenses. </p>

<p>I wouldn't recommend buying a 14n, but I'd have no reservations recommending the 14nx or the SLR/n, as long as the user understood the camera's limitations. </p>

[stephen_attaway]

<p>The slr/n's image quality at its base iso of 160 is still competitive. It is less fussy at metering than my Nikons. Working within its limits, and once you have your camera sorted, its easy to get really good results.<br>

"It's a camera for patient people who are willing to accommodate for its quirks"<br>

Concur.</p>

[steve_brown12]

<p>Yes the camera is dated but so am I.............yes new cameras represent new technology...........so what. If you undetrstand the history of photography great images were captured with some of the most primitive cameras of their time. The Kodak series of cameras were the first great ditigal camera equipment to hit the market in the 1990's and took an approach of a chip CCD manufacturing company since NIKON did not sell Kodak what they really needed, bodies, The SLRn is great if you are a pro and came from film or at least knew how to light and use a tripod. I still use this camera as an inexpensive version of a 6 x 6 back. Before one should offer negative comments............please realize as a reader of these negative comments how the photographer is using the Kodak SLRn. It is NOT for everyone and is more limited. If you want great colour and Kodak/Fuji film looks........please consider.<br>

Pro examples of the Kodak series....460, 660, SLRn and even good old film at:<br>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/flyingfotoman">www.flickr.com/photos/flyingfotoman</a><br>

<a href="http://www.stevebrownfoto.com">www.stevebrownfoto.com</a></p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I am not a patient photographer, and neither are most pros. They need their gear to respond. Now.</p>

<p>Any pro who is using one of those horrendous final-generation Kodak DSLRs will not be a pro for long. Can it take great photos? No doubt! Is it a horrible user-experience compared to what is available now? As someone who used one, imho... no doubt.</p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>Funny Peter<br>

I am a working pro and there are some things that I use my Pro 14 NX for. There are things I use my 4X5 for. I have no intentions of not being a pro any time soon. My clients could care less about what I use to get the shots they need.<br>

You don't like/ didn't like the older version of the camera. That is your prerogative. But you have no experience with the camera the OP is asking about. What you are doing is giving information for a D100 when some one is asking about a D300. They are two totally different animals</p>

[steve_bingham]

<p>TWO giant problems: I owned two Kodak SLR/n cameras. Kodak did not use an AA filter. This produced moire WAY too often. A bigger problem was the color control with a LOT of Nikon lenses. You would get a sky that would go (subtly) from magenta to green to magenta. Or then from Green to magenta to green. Boost the saturation just a tad and it would look terrible. Off color skies. Off color wedding dresses. Off color clouds. Etc. You are better off with an entry level Canon or Nikon DSLR. Or any other brand.</p>

[erie_patsellis]

<p>I agree with Michael (and well I should, I convinced him to look at the Kodak). As a working commercial/product shooter, there's some subjects that won't work with my scan back and Sinar. For those I use the SLR/N tethered.<br>

If you're not used to shooting (and metering for) chromes, or have the patience to learn how to properly expose, you'd do better to pass. With good lighting and exposure technique the Kodak will shine brightly, for those who are complacent, or would rather not learn (or relearn), it will bite you over and over.</p>

<p>The flag issue, IMHO, is overstated. If you're willing to spend 2 or 3 mins per lens you can easily overcome this with nothing more than a gray card and/or a piece of white card to find the proper lens correction adjustment.<br>

Granted, you can't meter with MF lenses, but it's not that big of an issue for the camera's target audience (studio and landscape shooters).</p>