Kodak SLR/c review

Discussion in 'Kodak' started by Bouser, Jun 29, 2004.

  1. Bouser

    Bouser Guest

    The latest Kodak body, the SLR/c (Canon mount) is reviewed on the DPReview
    site, and it's pretty ugly. Artifacts everywhere! Even though it can resolve
    more detail than the Canon 1Ds, image quality is nowhere near as good,
    overall. Even the samples are littered with artifacts, including sensor
    dust, moire, CA, etc.

    This one will keep you on film.
     
    Bouser, Jun 29, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Bouser

    Mick Sterbs Guest

    That's some pretty awful moire!
    Very disappointing results I'd say.
     
    Mick Sterbs, Jun 29, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. The Nikon mount version is substantially better and judging from Phil's
    Canon results - which are awful compared with the worst I got out of the
    Pro/n - is different in more ways than just the mount.

    David
     
    David Kilpatrick, Jun 29, 2004
    #3
  4. Bouser

    Bouser Guest

    Zakly. Very disappointing results with the Kodak. Even the sample shots show
    tons of artifacts.
     
    Bouser, Jun 29, 2004
    #4
  5. Bouser

    Bouser Guest

    ?? I wonder how? Same sensor, same software, same firmware. How much
    different could it be? Maybe it's the body. It is, after all, made by Sigma.
    Yes, really.
     
    Bouser, Jun 29, 2004
    #5
  6. Bouser

    Tom Scales Guest

    Idiot.

    They rejected using a Canon body because Canon wouldn't sell them or license
    them the bodies.

    Duh.s
     
    Tom Scales, Jun 30, 2004
    #6
  7. Bouser

    Crownfield Guest

    and 200,000 divided by the prediot-sigma factor is only 50,000.
     
    Crownfield, Jun 30, 2004
    #7

  8. They can't use what doesn't exist

    GK
     
    grant kinsley, Jul 1, 2004
    #8
  9. Bouser

    Crownfield Guest

    but the output of the Kodak 14n/c is 66mp.
    where have you been?
    did you not get the latest software upgrade?
     
    Crownfield, Jul 2, 2004
    #9
  10. You will. I have just printed an edition of f2 magazine which compares,
    side by side, the results of the SD10 and the Pro/n, both using files
    approximately 39 megapixels in final size, both left entirely
    unsharpened (no USM used in repro) and unadjusted from their default
    results produced by their own software. 200 line screen pdf to plate
    repro sheetfed 130gsm gloss art Euro - about as accurate as you can get.

    While the SD10 full page is extremely good and would be acceptable in
    almost any publication, the Kodak Pro/n full page is noticeably sharper
    with a higher level of fine detail, and generally a more pleasant colour
    rendering though some red shades are not especially well separated. It
    is more accurate.

    The Kodak costs 3 times the price of the Sigma and has disadvantages
    (just as the Sigma does) making both cameras a compromise. However,
    there is no doubt that it outresolves the SD10. The test was made with
    identical Sigma lenses. The theme of the article is 'Little and Large' -
    the smallest current sensor and pixel count, versus the largest current
    sensor and pixel count.

    Assuming that every current DSLR made falls between these extremes, it
    looks to me as if perfect full page reproductions are possible no matter
    what DSLR or system you happen to choose.

    David
     
    David Kilpatrick, Jul 2, 2004
    #10
  11. Bouser

    Skip M Guest

    Why is it that digital cameras seem to have such problems handling reds?
    The Sigma multi color sensor approach leaves something to be desired, and
    the CFA approach doesn't quite do it, either. I thought my D30's failings
    in this were just due to its age and low res, but other, newer, cameras seem
    to have the same problems, just not as bad. What's up?
     
    Skip M, Jul 2, 2004
    #11
  12. Film has similar problems, and scanned film certainly does. It's
    possible to oversaturate reds very easily. I have done scans of red
    flowers on Velvia where every shade of red in the flower turned to the
    same identical red in the scan - all detail and 3-D effect lost.

    Narrower-cut filters are the answer; true tricolour red, green and blue.
    Digital sensors don't use these because they lose 3 to 4 stops of light
    - good filters for separation making have a factor of 12-16X. Kodak and
    Panasonic have both used so-called 'pastel' colour filters (weak, low
    discrimination, low density red green and blue) to allow greater CCD
    sensitivity but even the densest CCD filters are nothing like as
    accurate in transmission as true RGB separation filters. If the red of
    the subject is equivalent to a narrower band than the filter used to
    shoot it, the camera has to rely on the blue and green information to
    position its hue. If those filters are wide in band and don't give very
    accurate discrimination, a range of red hues will be shown as if they
    were identical.

    The answer is that someone should make a CCD with true narrow-cut
    separation RGB filters, but it would probably have a sensitivity of
    about ISO 25.

    David
     
    David Kilpatrick, Jul 2, 2004
    #12
  13. Bouser

    Crownfield Guest

    when also very interpolated.


    the foveon is a 3 mp camera.
    teeeennnnyyyy.

    all the others are bigger.
     
    Crownfield, Jul 2, 2004
    #13
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.