Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Part II - Pro 14n Review  (Read 3107 times)
Quentin
Guest
« on: March 25, 2003, 08:42:52 AM »
ReplyReply

<< <<A Fuji S2 Pro or Nikon D100 will likely prove to be a more versatile picture taking tool>>

<<The Fuji S2 Pro is also based on the Nikon N80 (F80).

As is the D100, but versatility includes image quality, which has even more of a bearing on the tasks for which the camera is suited than does the body used (at least, up to a point).  The 14n picture quality in some conditions and at high ISO limits its versatility.
Logged
Paul Caldwell
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 25


« Reply #1 on: March 25, 2003, 12:29:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Hello Peter,

As a general rule of thumb the better the lighting, the better the performance of the chip.  Thus your 14n at 80 in good lighting should perform well.  This is true with any digital, I have shot with, D1, D1x S2, 660 and now 1ds.

This is also true on the higher ISO's.  You can get some amazingly detailed higher ISO shots from some of the Digitals out there in good light.  I used to be amazed at how good my old D1 was at 800 in good light, however when shooting in low or non optimum, lighting, then things went south fast.

Where all the software comes into play is helping the camera deal with the signal to noise ratios in low light  All chipsets have this problem, however CMOS tends to be worse since it is doing more processing on the acutal chip and thus will also tend to add to the noise.  

Thus the 14n at ISO 80 should be a champ in good light, boy if it wasn't then there would be real trouble as thats the cameras baseline of operations.  

Paul Caldwell
Logged
Quentin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1123



WWW
« Reply #2 on: March 25, 2003, 01:00:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Hey, Andrew, I was at Focus, and I also handled the 14n. I got there early and had quite a bit of time with it. The Kodak rep had some wedding pics taken with a pre-production camera. I and another guy "forced" the rep to zoom in to 100% on the shadows of a church shot, and there we saw a load of noise - I mean shedloads. The rep looked quite sheepish about it, and repeated the mantra "not a production camera". Well, it does not look like the production firmware makes one jot of difference to the noise problem.

I quite liked the camera in other respects. The software looked good. I really wanted to like the 14n, but I just cannot live with its apparent limitations. I have since shot a lot more with my S2 - and just could not give up what it gives me that the 14n never will.

Quentin (same guy, but now back on my regular 'pooter :: )
Logged

Quentin Bargate, ARPS, Author, photographer entrepreneur and senior partner of Bargate Murray, Law Firm of the Year 2013
etmpasadena
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 86


« Reply #3 on: April 03, 2003, 08:37:56 AM »
ReplyReply

>>I and another guy "forced" the rep to zoom in to 100% on the shadows of a church shot, and there we saw a load of noise - I mean shedloads. <<

But how much of this noise makes it into a print? Is it so much noise that you think it would still be visible when the print is run off at 240 or 300 dpi? Not everything you see at 100% magnification makes it into a print, though that does depend on the size of the print and how much upsampling you want/need to do. Just curious.
Logged
Peter K. Burian
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 47


WWW
« Reply #4 on: March 25, 2003, 08:03:33 AM »
ReplyReply

I finally found Part II of Michael's Review http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/came...-initial2.shtml

A couple of comments:

Michael is right; my own subsequent testing confirms the Pro 14n does not produce optimum image quality in low light or in deep shade, particularly in high ISO.

A few comments:

There's a big gap between ISO 80 and 400.  The camera also produced high quality at ISO 100, 125, 160, 200, etc. in my tests - and also at ISO 400 in decent light.

Spare batteries: Vistek and others sell an aftermarket remote battery pack that makes more sense. See www.digitalcamerabattery.com There is a cable dedicated for the Pro 14n. It can also power a flash unit at the same time. (Most pros already use an external battery pack; Quantum will soon have a cable dedicated to the Pro 14n, as well.)

<<A Fuji S2 Pro or Nikon D100 will likely prove to be a more versatile picture taking tool>>

The Fuji S2 Pro is also based on the Nikon N80 (F80).

Peter
Logged
Andrew Richards
Guest
« Reply #5 on: March 25, 2003, 11:07:07 AM »
ReplyReply

I can't help but agree with Quentin on this one.
I very strongly get the feeling that it is all going pear-shaped for Kodak on this one. I was at the Focus show on the Tuesday last month and handled the 14n. I was expecting to be shown some great sample images, but the guy on the stand said that they had been wiped off his system by accident the day before. Can you believe that? Instead I was shown a load of dodgy snaps taken around the show....not auspicious! Also, I was told that the camera was shipping the next week, but it still does'nt seem to be for sale in the UK yet.
Like Quentin, I will be sticking with the S2. As he has shown it is capable of stunning results. I took mine to Morocco last year (yes, it travelled well) and the low-light capability was the real eye-opener as well as overall image quality. I am sure that is what he means by 'versatility'. Not being able to bracket in 1/3rd stop increments (as opposed to 1/2 stop) is just nitpicking.
Logged
Peter K. Burian
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 47


WWW
« Reply #6 on: March 25, 2003, 12:39:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Of course ... the D100 is also based on the N80. So neither camera is more versatile in "photographic" capabilities than the Pro 14n. And that was what Michael was getting it in his comments in Part II.

Image quality and various digital issues are separate and distinct, in my mind.

Granted, you need to consider all of them when deciding which camera to buy. I agree. I don't agree with knocking the Pro 14n in "photographic" versatility -- and then touting the D100 and S2 Pro as better in that respect -- when there is little difference.

Peter
Logged
Peter K. Burian
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 47


WWW
« Reply #7 on: April 02, 2003, 12:02:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Another Pro 14n Preview has been published, by MSN.com

http://photos.msn.com/editori....RTMENTS
Logged
Peter K. Burian
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 47


WWW
« Reply #8 on: April 03, 2003, 08:53:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
<<< But how much of this noise makes it into a print? Is it so much noise that you think it would still be visible when the print is run off at 240 or 300 dpi? >>>

Good point! I don't think any of the Reviews published to date commented at all about the print quality available from any Pro 14n image.

I have made gorgeous 13x19" prints from ISO 80 and ISO 100 images. I still need to make a 13x19" print from an ISO 400 image, made in deep shade in low light. (An image that does exhibit some noise.)

Will advise as to my findings when I do so.

Peter
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad