Lonely Bird at Dusk--Experimenting with an Old Kodak DCS PRO SLR/n (2004 vintage)

Shot with a Kodak DSC PRO SLR/n that I recently picked up on eBay forpeanuts. No processing, no sharpening. Cropped and posted afterbeing converted from Raw to TIFF to JPEG. Comments welcome.

--Lannie

In 2004, I bought the Kodak 14n.  The Kodak DCS PRO SLR/n which I just picked up on eBay is definitely an improvement, but Kodak abandoned DSLRs just when they were beginning to get a few things right.  Both cameras had incredible pixel for pixel sharpness.  Here is the resized original file.

--Lannie

 

SMALLER CROP WITHOUT UNSHARP MASK

SMALLER CROP WITH UNSHARP MASK AT 100

The files come out of the big Kodak very sharp because of the absence of an anti-aliasing filter.

The purpose of the last two uploads above is to see if the use of UNSHARP MASK actually gives a better screen presentation than the original file, without USM or sharpening of any kind.  (No presumption is being made here about whether any possible advantages or disadvantages would carry over to prints.)

The release of the Nikon D800 (with anti-aliasing filter) and the Nikon D800E (without anti-aliasing filter) raised these questions in my mind, even though any conclusions reached with the Kodak would not necessarily carry over to the Nikon(s).

--Lannie

100 PERCENT CROP WITH NO UNSHARP MASK OR OTHER SHARPENING

100 PERCENT CROP WITH UNSHARP MASK AT 100

Digital Photography Review, after lambasting the Kodak 14n in a full review ( http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/kodakdcs14n/ ) made prior to the final firmware upgrades, never really did a complete review of the Kodak DCS PRO SLR/n, although it did do so for the Kodak DCS PRO SLR/c (a similar camera with a Canon rather than Nikon mount):

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/kodakslrc/

Although the review of the Canon mount version was dismissive of some truly significant improvements in image quality over the 14n, the fact is that the upgrades from the 14n were quite significant, as can be seen in these samples from both upgraded cameras:

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/albums/kodak-dcs-pro-slr-n-preview-samples/slideshow

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/albums/kodak-dcs-pro-slr-c-review-samples/slideshow

(As of this writing, it is still possible to download full-sized JPEGs from both cameras.  That will not likely always be the case.)

The big Kodaks (all three versions, starting with the 14n and going on to the DCS PRO SLR/n and the DCS PRO SLR/c) unfortunately had other problems.  They were slow to boot up, had slow frame rates, seemed to be constantly "recalibrating," etc.  Even so, those who were willing to put up with the idiosyncrasies of these early pioneers into full-frame DSLR photography could pull some astounding images out of them.  I shot the Kodak 14n for over two years before selling it and buying the Canon 5D in the summer of 2006.  The 5D was a superb camera, and I never seriously looked back--except with some recollection of the sharpness of the Raw and JPEG files from the Kodaks, and the relative softness of the files from the 5D, caused at least in part by the use of an anti-aliasing filter on the 5D.

Even so, looking at the samples I linked to above indicates that Kodak was onto something with its first--and all too brief--forays into full-frame digital photography.  After all, 14 megapixels was a lot of megapixels in 2004, and full-frame was not an option for Nikon shooters except by way of the Nikon mount on the Kodak DCS PRO SLR/n.  (Nikon would not come out with a full-frame DSLR until late 2007.)   I wish that Kodak had not given up on full-frame DSLRs, in the same way that I wish that it had made other marketing choices (and customer support choices) over the years.

Here we are eight years later, and it is hard to find any files today that are as sharp coming straight out of the camera as those that Kodak made possible in 2004.  If only. . . , if only. . . .

The release of the new Nikon D800 and the D800E indicates that the DSLR community has not forgotten what is possible when one is willing to produce a camera without an anti-aliasing filter.  (What Nikon has actually done is a bit more complicated than the previous sentence would indicate, but I will let it stand as written.)  Since the D800E will give photographers the option of shooting with or without the anti-aliasing filter (another over-simplification of what Nikon has actually done), photographers will have the choice to decide in a given instance whether or not they want sharpness at all costs or not.

I can only imagine some of the engineers at Kodak looking at the new Nikons and shaking their heads and wondering what might have been if Kodak had not bailed out of serious digital photography some years ago.

As for Nikon, with the D3 it finally entered the world of full-frame digital photography in 2007:

http://photo.net/equipment/nikon/D3/D3-review

--Lannie

Here is Michael Reichmann's old review on Luminous Landscape:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/Kodak%20ProSLR-mini-review.shtml

The limitations of the camera at high ISO are obvious enough.

--Lannie

Hi Lannie,

A definite high score for your effort to provide such a nice recap on the history of this Kodak DSLR camera.

Having owned all the Kodak DCS cameras, the ones that I retained are the Kodak 720X and the Kodak 760. Both these cameras have their own unique characteristics that would take me pages to enumerate. I purchased all my Kodak Pro cameras new (a big expense back then).

The aspects that stand out for me are that Kodak used the Nikon F5 camera body (the best built 35mm film camera ever produced) to transplant their sensor packages into.

The Anti-aliasing filter and IR filter were removable from these bodies, allowing them much greater flexibility in the scientific world of imaging.

The true mechanical mirror lock up feature is superb. It allows me to use the very rare retro-focus Nikkor lens with the cameras. These lens have  outstanding characteristics due to the fact that their rear element protrudes into the camera body about 2 mm above the imaging plane (sensor or film).

There are no Nikon DSLR cameras today that would allow such lens to work .

The interchangeable viewfinders, magnifier hoods, and specialized focusing screens made for the Nikon F5 film camera work on the Kodak DCS versions, too.

As you show, the image quality produced by these cameras is excellent despite the smaller sensor area and number of pixels used.

In my professional use of these cameras, I could easily provide an 11X14 inch final print from  cameras  that had between 2.7 to 6 mega pixel sensors.

Best Regards,  Mike

 

Thanks, Mike.  I appreciate your synopsis of the features of some of the other DCS cameras from Kodak.

As for the 14n and the DSC PRO SLR/n, one thing that I neglected to mention is the sometimes seemingly random color aberrations, especially the color fringing around high contrast edges.  I somehow doubt that that could ever have been corrected with the sensor used.  It probably would have been necessary to start allow over from the sensor up, if Kodak had decided to stay in the full-frame DSLR business.

In this particular image, the color fringing is not too objectionable, but it is there.

--Lannie

 

 

I was a consultant to Kodak at the time of their release of these "pro"  line of DCS  cameras.

I knew several of the engineers working in the digital labs.

Their sensor was an in house formulation that they developed to try to mimic film characteristics. The sensor was good, but not as good as the sensor that Nikon was working on. When Nikon and Kodak had a falling out, over the direction and improvements that needed to take place on Kodak's part, then Nikon released the D1, which really ran circles around the Kodak version.

Nikon also furnished Fuji with camera bodies less expensive and massive than the F5 and Fuji placed their hexagon shaped sensor in the body. The attraction of using all the Nikkor lens on an inexpensive and capable Fuji line of DSLR cameras, allowed both companies to benefit.

Best Regards,  Mike

 

Thanks for offering that bit of perspective, Mike.  I did not know any of that.  I had been under the impression that this was one sensor that Kodak did not develop on their own.  I am also surprised that the low-megapixel D1 sensor out-performed it--although almost 14 megapixels was truly a lot to squeeze onto a sensor during that epoch, and so the big Kodaks were almost bound to have a low S/N.

--Lannie