rainer_viertlb_ck

the kodak slr is great if you use the iso6 mode, which results in exp. times from 15 till 60 seconds. than the sahrpness and the dynamic range are outstanding. i made some test shots, which you can see here.

 

www.tangential.de/test7-dr

 

you can count over the +-0 EV 3,5 stops till the highlights are blown out, now add the 4 stops underexposure ( metered to the 18%grey field ) and add the 3 stops the gretag table shows till the black field,- and you result in an very good usuable range of 10 - 10,5 stops.

you can see also that even the -5 exposure still is not so noisy,- so this would equal around 11 - 11,5 stops usuable range.

i think there is NO other digital solution in the market, except scanbacks or multishot backs, which can come closed to this.

 

in normal mode this camera has between 7 - 8 stops, as the canon 1dmk2.

you ever worked with one of this cameras?

i am sure you didnt after reading your statement....

what you write is just wrong at 100%, but sounds good to blame things you dont know, isnt it?

great lense, as the 12-24dx also. i really like the sigma wide angle lenses,- it seems so that they know to construct them better than nikon and canon..... in terms of overall sharpness, CA and distortion.

 

it is even sharp @f1,8,- but with my kodak slr/n you HAVE to focus therfore manually, the autofocus will not make the lense sharp under f 2,8. some, but not much- cromatic aberrations.

very very sharp at f8-f11 till the corners.

the onliest thing is that it shows some moustache distortion. not very much, but very difficult or impossible to correct with normal softare.

buy an old 35/2 summicron and also an old 90/2,8 and you are perfect fitted. the quality difference to the newer lenses is very little ( is it visible in real world shooting???? i have doubts....) and the price difference is enourmous.

what is nearly allways a need with the slr, is postproduction in photoshop. a.e. in bright sun you will very often have blue fringing at hig contrast edges or in trees. this is completely unacceptable if you are not willed to work with the images later in the computer. i think in this aspects the canon behaves much better and easy.

i bought the kodak slr, because i think that for my needs it is the best 35mm digi-slr.

and thats exactly the question.... for sport or fast jpeg results this camera is rabbish. so you have to define very exactly wherefore you will use it. also a 617cm linhof camera will be rabbish for sports or underwater use.....

i am using the slr/n for architecture, exterior and interior. it works very well for it,- if you are conscient that the images have to be shooten in raw and postprocessed. long exposures are not any problem. the camera has a longer setting which works nearly noise free.

you will have very bad luck with prime lenses and the 14n. i havent seen any prime which works without a significant colorshift, avene the common 50/1,4 and 35/2 nikons. they are NOT usuable on this camera. with zoom lenses the things are different, they work well ( most of them )on the 14n. you should consider the newer slr kodak. it has not more problems with primes.

i am using a lyson continuos ink system. works fine. ink is no longer a cost factor for printing.....thats great.

i like it after initial problems with some firmware bugs.

great for landscape and architecture also. and for portrait. not so good for lo light shooting. unusuable for fsat focus- needed sport shooting.

 

usefull is a 4gb drive. without i couldnt work with a good workflow.

so i use one 4gb drive and 1 1gb drive,- which i use meanwhile the 4gb drive can be downloaded to the laptop.

i bought a kodak SLR/n for me. mostly i shoot architecture and now i start to mix shots from the SLR and 4x5" shots for some shots, wher i have the need for higher resolution. sincs i found a very good example of the sigma 12-24 lense, the digital system covers in wide angle the same view than my 4x5" with my 35mm rodenstock. ofcourse i have to shift electronically, but till din A3+ the results are stunning,- completely comparable to my 4x5" sheets, even if they are drumscanned.

also there are many situations where i even prefere the digital shots,- especially for the higher dynamic range. i really like this new way to shoot........

i was using a kodak 14n and now a kodak SLR/n for landscape work. although i own i 617 technorama and a 4x5" linhof the kodaks are what i usenow. they are great. comparaple resolution than 6x9cm negative film drumscanned.

very good made comparison. although the author wrote that no images are sharpened, i think i can see that the drumscanns have had some sharpening in the scanning process, i suppose it happened in the scanning software, which is often the case as the default scanning setting. i own also a drum scanner, the results are clearly superior and sharper than any ccd scanner, but the drumscanns here look sharpened.

anyway- the tendency is clear and good made. but you have to be conscient that this results are for velvia film, for every negative film or for every slide film over iso 100 the results would have been clear in favour of the digital capture.

the velvia drumscanned 35mm slides are the onliest emulsion which can hold up a comparation to my fuji S2. and my kodak 14n blows it away in any case, i suppose the 1ds would do also...... i made exactly the same comparation before i sold (nearly) all my leica 35mm equipement. now i shoot digitally, except if i use 4x5" or 6x17cm cameras.

i think its important to buy the right tools for your work. and there is no universale great tool,- as there is no lense which covers 17mm - 300mm on the same level as a.e.primes or good 28-70 zooms. how much you spend just to have lenses one apperture more wide open? think about this and see the kodak as a very good tool to work from iso 80 ( equ. iso50 cause you have to overexpose still ) to iso 160. it can substitute cromes on a very hi level and offer you much more resolution than 35mm,- its comparavle with 6x7 or 6x9.

yesterday i have repeated a shot which i did with my technikardan before with 6x9cm film ( provia and wet drumscanned ). the kodak 14n is not worther at all, particulary better.... detail is the same,- little bit better from film for lesscontrast things, little bit better from the kodak for higher contrasts ,- in the end the kodak image is the better one cause no noise ( iso 80 ) makes the image quality at all visible cleaner and better.

i own a s2 also. under good light you cannt compare the two.

if i need hi quality i use 4x5" or my technorama 617.

if 10-15"/ 300 dpi output is enough i started to use digital...

fuji s2 and kodak 14n. fantsatic workflow,- i have fun to use them.

sold my leica r gear. why? cause it has no chance even against the s2.

even with drumscanned cromes .... the beloved 100t negativ film a.e. looks so bad against its digital counterpart....

cant speak bout medium format cause i dont use cause there are to little wide angle lenses for architecture. but i suppose the 14n will be at least at the same level than any mf film camera.

 

i will hold my leica m... for shooting b+w and stock/ travel. and because the system is so beautyfull. and because i started with a m4p....

its definitely wrong that the 14n cannt do longer exposures. you have a long and a longer exp. mode and this allows you to shoot as long as you want. but it seems also that the noise increases after 1/2 - 2 sec exposure. but for sunset pictures should be enough. well i will see also how works the cam cause i just ordered it also. forget the dpreview review, was done with one of the first firmwares and the camera has improved a lot of.... saw the same pictures done with old and new firmware,- you cannt compare.

for reviews look here:

http://www.bythom.com/14n.htm

yes so it is with ir...

people look like ghosts,- which can be nice also...sometimes

is the new firmware working significant better in the aspect of noise

with iso above 100? how works the camera with long exposures over 1

second? it seems that the nikon 3.5/28 shift does not work with the

camera. what about the schneider kreuznsch pc28 ?.

which times you use for a.e. 0.65 beta in ultrafin plus at 20 degrees?

which in 24 degrees, cause than i could use my atl1000. or do you in

general advise me to develop in the "old manner" outside the machine?

 

advises welcome..................

thanks

you should scan only with the physical resolution of the scanner,- this is the full resolution, the half of it a quarter of it and so on....

bout 16bit scanning: i use it sometimes, if i see that i have to make extremely contrast, gradation or color changes, which i cant make directly in the scanner software. after scanning with 16bit i make this drastical changes in the 16bit mode in photoshop, than i go on in 8bit to have the full possibilities of layers and so on. but as i said before: i dont use 16bit often, cause normally you wont see a difference.

the imacon should reproduce sharp, if not it is not focus calibrated or somethings not working right.

i have a similar adapter for my technikardan to my leica. i nearly never use it.....

the responses seem to be qualified but they dont respond to your question:

there no problem to buy a 2.hand drum scanner, if it runs on pc depends on the software. if the machine runs well is not so easy to say especially if you dont have experience. scan in every resolution and look carefull to EVERY rare tdetail in the scans. listen ti strange noises and vibrations. go with someone who has ( much ) eperience,- this maybe is the best idea. parts for drumscanner are generally expensive. dont buy a model which manufacture broke down and for which there is nomore service available.

i would advice you actually three models, all scan around 20 x 30 cm and 4000 - 5200 dpi, which is enough:

1. howtek 4000 or 4500. mechanical very robust construction but it is loud and not very fast ( depeds on softare too). many softare exist and actual versions too, a.e. from silverfast and from vuescan.

prices from 1000$ till 4000$ , depends if there is a mounting station, one , two or more drums, the softare and the condition.

2. screen 1030 ai. very good quality scanner, but very old software, anyway it works very well, if you know to use it. important is that you bua the AI version of the scanner. software works well only for mac. prices 2500$ till 4500$

3. scanview scanmate 4000 or 5000. fast drumscanner with modern design, very good software for mac and pc from colorquartet ( not cheap ). so look for that at least vers. 4 is included with the scanner.

 

what was written bout neg scans is not true. all depends if you learn to write good profiles for your neg.software and to use your software well. than not any of this drumscanners has problems with negs. the reason why prof work with cromes are that you can see without miss-interpretation the image and its colors,- your client also. in many ways its more comfortable and give less possibilities for horrible interpretations or colorshifts if they are scanned.

i dont know how good my tests have been made, but i made some here....

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005lJE