NEW !!! Full frame DSLR for less than the 1D Mk II

[digitmstr]

It's cool that it has a full frame sensor but, I am not crazy about the camera's features and ergonomics.

[bobatkins]

Well if it is a Sigma body and it's reverse engineered like the Sigma lenses are, I'd be worried.

 

We know that everytime Canon brings out a new body, lots of Sigma lenses have to be shipped back to Sigma for rechipping. Clearly Sigma doesn't know everything about the mount and interface protocol. That being the case, there's clearly a worry that future Canon lenses might not work on it. They might, but it's an expensive gamble. I suppose they might "rechip" the body if that happened. Then gain they might not.

[philippe]

After all that was said and discussed here, I think the most noticable point to me is, that this is, to my knowledge, the first third party camera ever (at least digital)! (Tell me, if I am wrong)

All previous Kodaks and Fujis were based on either Nikon or Canon bodies.

 

Since very long we know the reengineered lenses (no matter if they are good or not), but not digital camera bodies. Since this seems to be a Sigma body, I think this opens a new road for the future. Great to have some competition and choice. Shure, it's not a 1DII and not a 1Ds. But also a Rolls Royce is not a Mercedes, is not an Audi, is not a VW, is not a Fiat (sorry, I am from over here in Europe). They come for different needs and at different prices.

 

Are we going to have multiple 3rd party bodies in the future? Various for the EF mount, various for the Nikon mount and maybe multiple 3/4-system brands?

[ShunCheung]

Bob, you are echoing the same point I made earlier. If it is indeed reverse engineered by Sigma, electronic compatibility will likely be an issue for this Kodak camera. However, it may simply mean some fireware upgrades which hopefully can be carried out by the user. I wouldn't be surprised that Canon will delibitely make changes in their new lenses to create problems on the Kodak DSLR. In that case it won't take long before the new Kodak camera to develop a poor reputation.

 

Obviously I haven't handled this new camera yet, but based on the images of the camera I have seen, I don't particularly like the disign and the controls. IMO Kodak did a terrible job by putting high-end digital guts into an inexpensive Nikon body in the F80/N80 to create the DCS 14n. If I am in the market for a Canon-mount DSLR, I would prefer a genuine Canon body than this Kodak.

[wilfred_m_rand]

Bob, Kodak's style isn't to engage in reverse engineering. They buy licenses (as well as sell them). And it's not as if Canon is introducing new lenses at some breathtaking rate.

 

Based on the specs, this is a studio/landscape/architect style camera. It isn't battlehardened like the 1D<i>x</i>, ISO's are too low, and frame rate and write speed are lugubrious to say the least. Wedding photogs, portraitists, and inhouse creative studios are going to snap this up.

 

Me? I am seriously going to consider this camera for my upgrade to ≥8mp dSLR. (It's not like I'm buying lenses at a breathtaking rate!) =o)) -will

[wilfred_m_rand]

>< Dummy slap! ><<div></div>

[bobatkins]

<em>Bob, Kodak's style isn't to engage in reverse engineering. They buy licenses (as well as sell them)</em>

<p>

Possibly, but when Kodak were directly asked that question, they declined to comment on any agreements which may or may not exist (or may or may not ever have existed) between Canon and Kodak on this project. If they're licenced, this does seem a bit odd, though I guess they may have their reasons.

<P>

Also, if Sigma do make it, I'd be surprised if Canon would give full details of their lens and body interface protocols to Sigma (even via Kodak). They certainly DON'T licence their technology to Sigma.

<p>

I presume if Sigma can reverse engineer a lens, they could reverse engineer a body too. I presume nothing about the physical lensmount is proprietary and reverse engineering is allowed as long as you don't actually steal and use your competitors source code.

<p>

The reason this camera doesn't use a Canon built body may well be because Canon wouldn't give them one, and it's probably not economic to buy them retail, gut them of the film stuff and try to retrofit your own electronics! Even if they were talking to Canon, I suspect Canon aren't going to supply a competitor with a high end body for something like this and eat into their own market share. It makes no sense. Maybe you'd give them a Rebel body, so their frame rate is limited and you can't use it outdoors in the rain!

[ShunCheung]

A little more than a year ago, I had a chance to talk to some Canon reps and some Kodak reps. Apparently the cooperation between Canon and Kodak to make those Canon-based Kodak DCS DSLRs in the mid to late 1990's was a disaster. Essentially there is no way those two companies would work together again any time soon. That is why I am quite sure that Kodak's is producing this DCS Pro/c without Canon's blessing and help. If you compare bodies carefully, the Kodak Pro/c looks awfully similar to Sigma's SD-10 DSLR; the back sides are similar and the top views are pretty much identical.

 

Canon and Kodak may work together again some day, when there is profit to be made by both sides. But at this time it is unlikely to happen.