Kodak Pro SLRs?

They seems to be cheap nowadays.

Anyone had experience with the /c bodies?

 

Hari Seldon wrote,on my timestamp of 11/11/2009 11:36 PM:

Sorry, no. Unfortunately. Would love to be able to say yes...

 

Mating a cheap film body to a digital mechanism doesn't look too good
today compared to the competition such as the concurrent Canon 1Ds or
the soon to follow Nikon D1.

Some like the lack of low pass filter saying that makes for great color,
but then again, others use AA filters for a reason and that reason often
shows up in the 14. It's hopelessly noise at even modestly high ISO's as
well.

I think they'd make a good curiosity for a few hundred bucks.

 

I saw prices around 300 euro, so I got greedy ánd curious. A Canon 5D still
is around 700 euro nowadays...

 

The 14/c isn't a patch on the 5D. I'd get the 5D unless you have a
fetish for ancient hardware.

 

Ok... so the 5D justifies the double price compared to the 14/c. Could you
please specifie why?

Now... my 300D does a fine job, except for 2 things. I got a 1,6 crop I
don;t want and 3 raw buffer pictures is way too little for my line of work.

 

Improved IQ at all ISO's. Buy the 14/c if you prefer. I don't mind.

 

the 5d is a well made camera with a very good sensor. the slr/c is made
by sigma. it's basically an sd-10 with a noisy kodak sensor instead of
the foveon sensor. the slr/n was made by kodak using nikon parts.